Calling all IJN Fubuki class (??????) Toku-gata fans

[Dan K]

Was it the same on other Japanese destroyers, or did they have single 13.2 guns?

Assuming that I understand your question correctly -

At the outset of the war, only the classes prior to the Fubukis carried any single 13.2mm guns, IIRC. The exception was the Type III Fubukis; they had two single 13mm guns mounted midships, on either side of the deckhouse, inbetween #2 funnel and the RDF/searchlight compartment.

During the war, there were undoubtedly many adhoc instances of DDs carrying single 7.7mm or 13.2mm guns. For instance, there is that well-known photo of Shirayuki at the Bismarck Sea with a 13mm atop a TT mount, surrounded by sandbags.

Shirayuki also shows that many of the Type Is were modified either immediately pre-war or early on to carry two twin 13mm mounts on a revised platform in front of #1 funnel.

Late in the war, destroyers across all classes could carry a mix of 13.2mm and 25mm single mounts.

[Mike W]

I was looking at my kit of Hatsuharu, which I know isn't a Fubuki but I noticed the Yamashita Fubuki's had twin guns and the Hatsuharu only had single mg's, just made me wonder, if it was a general thing for Japanese destroyers to have had single Mg's replaced by twins, or maybe it was just a Fubuki thing, or differed on individual ships.

thanks
Mike

[Dan K]

Ah. Well, the IJN installed single 40mm mounts (Vickers design) on the Hatsuharu, Shiratsuyu, and some Asashio class ships as built. Almost all were replaced by wartime, though some ships retained theirs for a few months into the war. Those were all replaced by 25mm twins.

Confused yet, Mike?

[Mike W]

Ah. Well, the IJN installed single 40mm mounts (Vickers design) on the Hatsuharu, Shiratsuyu, and some Asashio class ships as built. Almost all were replaced by wartime, though some ships retained theirs for a few months into the war. Those were all replaced by 25mm twins.

Confused yet, Mike?

I'm not sure confused is the correct word, it's more like I wasn't aware the IJN had upgraded the destroyer AA by late 41/early 42. I remember most of the models back in the day (like to 70's Tamiya destroyer kits) only having single MG's for the early war fit models. It sounds like to me that is that there may have been ones still carrying single MG's by WW2, so if that's what the model has, that's what it'll get, I guess with the IJN, it might be difficult to prove what every ship was fitted with all the time.

thanks
Mike

[Dan K]

This is an FYI - In researching roll-off depth charge racks at the stern for the Kagero class, I realized that the FineMolds kits for the late war Ushio and Akebono are in error. The kits retain the original tracks for dropping mines, and then later, single depth charges when, in fact, there should be roll-off depth charge racks in their place.

There are aftermarket d-c rack sets available. Rainbow comes to mind for one.

[Dan K]

Just in case anyone missed the announcement under Manufacturers and Suppliers, Tom's Modelworks has released two PE sets for the 1/350 FineMolds kits.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=405752

[Erik W]

Back on October 10 Triumph Model posted some renderings of an upcoming 1/350 scale Fubuki Type I with the long forecastle, as seen in 1941. So good for Fubuki, Hatsuyuki, Miyuki, Murakumo from that time frame I think, though Dan K can chime in if I'm mistaken. I'm not sure how accurate it is. I've only recently waded into the IJN Fubuki world, so I'll leave that assessment to the resident IJN experts.

Dan reviewed the Triumph Model Mutsuki (Mutsuki Class) this month, so I would imagine the quality will be similar, though hopefully they listen to the feedback about the hull plating being too pronounced.
The Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/10006885480038 ... 079087042/

Thanks,
Erik

[Erik W]

Here's more info on the upcoming Triumph Model 1/350 scale Fubuki Type I model, with photos.

https://www.hobbyeasy.com/en/data/t6ooc ... fn3ik.html

https://www.hobbyeasy.com/en/data/0m0mk ... snlcu.html

https://www.hobbyeasy.com/en/data/lg5un ... vften.html

I'm not an expert on IJN stuff, so can't really comment on how accurate the model will be.

Erik

[Tracy White]

Not a fan of the hull plating, but I'm in for one.

[Erik W]

I think I may pick up one as well. The Type 1 Fubuki is my favorite IJN destroyer. The heavy hull plating seems to be a constant on Triumph Model offerings. Since the degaussing cable, porthole rims with eyebrows, and porthole covers are separate PE pieces, I imagine it's possible to carefully sand down the thickness of the hull plating without losing detail, since those will be added later. I'd be curious to see one of these in person. Maybe by not bothering to use washes or dry brushing on the hull when weathering, the overdone plating wouldn't be very noticeable when viewing a finished model.

Erik

[Dan K]

The overscale plating is highly annoying, but perhaps not reason enough to avoid the kit. Particularly if it's as nice as the Mutsuki kit. Obviously, the plating will be less pronounced in the waterline version.

Accuracy will have to wait for an actual kit. We didn't get a Shiratsuyu class kit for review, and it's not clear as of now that we'll get a Fubuki for review.

Compare the kit to the actual hull plating.

[Erik W]

I wonder if the reason you didn't receive a Shiratsuyu to review was because of your less than stellar honest review of the Akizuki. At any rate, I hope they send along a Fubuki for review. I'd be curious what you think.

Erik

[Tracy White]

The overscale plating is highly annoying,

Unfortunately "overdone" is all the rage these days, with people mistaking overscale detail and weathering as "better" and I hope the pendulum swings back sooner rather than later. I sanded most of the absolutely incorrect and heavy hull plating off of my Merit CV-5 and there wasn't anything "careful" about it - I had to use coarse sanding sticks to make it take any sort of tolerable time. Your suggestion of not working to bring out the detail is probably our best course of action.

[Dan K]

your less than stellar honest review of the Akizuki.

That has occurred to me, but I was hardly the first to point out the errors. Plenty of Chinese social media sites slammed it and much more directly than I. I like to think I offered a reasonable path to an improved version, because it really could be a great kit.

I hope they send along a Fubuki for review. I'd be curious what you think.

One way or another, a kit will eventually be reviewed.

"overdone" is all the rage these days, with people mistaking overscale detail and weathering as "better" and I hope the pendulum swings back sooner rather than later.

We are definitely on the same page, Tracy.

not working to bring out the detail is probably our best course of action.

I happen to agree. The effects can be diminished slightly.

[Erik W]

Yeah. I really don't understand this desire for thick hull plating. Particularly how every other plate strake stands out from the hull more than the hull plates above and below. When looking at any high res photo, they clearly show that the prototype had flush hull plating



Erik

[Dan K]

Well, if you want to be specific, the strakes did overlap, but nothing like the Triumph kits.