Calling all IJN Destroyer/DE fans

[chuck]

My Isokaze kit came with none of those planes, or extras other than the 3rd 12.7cm turret, and parts to build different fits. Other than the Matsu/Tachibana class, no first rate IJN DD carried an open 12.7cm40cal. mount. Maybe your extra's were an accident; something from Nagato?

Nagato only came with 1 type of float plane, and no open single 12.7cm mounts or torpedo tubes. Sounds like a totally new equipment sprue.

[Devin]

Don't be shy to jump into the 350th end of the pool, Dan.

It's only a matter of time...

[Serhan Oflas]

Hello All,

I just started Hasegawa 1/350 Isokaze and spot a small conflict in instruction pages. I am gonna finish it Ten-go configuration but,

Here dwgs indicating that modeler has to be filled holes for aft flagpole on aft deck :


Than we have nice flagpole on rest of the dwgs. :




Your opinions please ??

Regards
Serhan

[Gilbert]

Hi Serhan,

I have looked at my library and found some drawings of Yukikaze, sistership of Isokaze, both ships being involved in Ten-Go. All drawings at that timeframe show the flagpole in place. Therefore, IMHO, don't fill the holes and display the flagpole.

cheers

Gilbert

[Serhan Oflas]

Hello Gilbert,

OK. Many thanks for your time

Regards
Serhan

[Dan K]

The thing to keep in mind is that both the bow and stern flagstaffs/jacks are actually collapsible, rigged to be folded flat against the deck. There are photos that show these in stowed versions.

That said, I cannot tell you exactly under what conditions the staff were laid down. Not sure if it was at sea, in preparation for refueling or rendez-vous) (most of the photos seem to have been taken under those conditions), or at the captain's perogative.

[Gilbert]

Thanks for the info Dan. Therefore it's possible to depict IJN destroyers without any flagpoles deployed. Same with the bigger units ?

cheers

Gilbert

[Dan K]

Hi, Gilbert:

The key seems to be whether the vessel is actually operating at sea or not. Most photos catch the ships at anchor, or running trials, or some manuever or activity close to land. However, the few photos that show them operationally, seem to have the flagstaffs in lowered, or collapsed position. The photo below is of a Fubuki B2 turret but you can see the lowered staff at the bow. Note how the support legs are splayed out.

A quick glance thru the Gakken book on the Mogami class showed several photos at sea as light cruisers, with the bow staffs down.

[Gilbert]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the info and for the picture as well. I share your opinion about the bow flagstaff but I think IJN used to keep their stern flagstaff deployed except on certain special occasions like maintenance. Most of the pictures of ships underway or at anchor show it deployed.
Therefore, for more realism, I think our IJN models depicted as underway should have the bow flagstaff lowered as in your picture.

cheers

Gilbert

[FrancisMcN]

Gilbert - If it was anything like current RN practice, the Ensign staff is raised shortly before going into harbour and the sea ensign transferred to the ensign staff. Were the photos you mentioned all taken close to land?

[Dan K]

Hi, Gilbert. I think my comments apply to the rear staff as well. Took a look at Gakken vol 16 on the Takao class and photos of Atago or Takao looking aft, operationally at sea, several photos show the rear staff down as well.

Given that many IJN practices evolved from RN practices, it seems likely, as Francis indicates, that jackstaff handling at sea was similar. FWIW

[Gilbert]

Gilbert - If it was anything like current RN practice, the Ensign staff is raised shortly before going into harbour and the sea ensign transferred to the ensign staff. Were the photos you mentioned all taken close to land?

Hello Francis,

To be honest, I don't really know how far from land they were taken but anyway most of the pictures with the rear flagstaff deployed have not been taken under combat conditions. Thanks for this useful input regarding RN practice.

cheers

Gilbert

[Gilbert]

Hi, Gilbert. I think my comments apply to the rear staff as well. Took a look at Gakken vol 16 on the Takao class and photos of Atago or Takao looking aft, operationally at sea, several photos show the rear staff down as well.

Given that many IJN practices evolved from RN practices, it seems likely, as Francis indicates, that jackstaff handling at sea was similar. FWIW

Yes Dan, I fully aggree with you, it makes sense and thanks for the info.

cheers

Gilbert

[Wick Nole]

Got the Tamiya's Yukikaze yesterday. Great kit, much more detailed (if compare with pictures I've seen) than Hasegava's one. Plus some photoetched parts are included, as well as the steel propeller schafts and anchor chains. I'm waiting for the Lion Roar super detailing set now, and then 'll be ready to start the build.

[Dan K]

As part of an off-line discussion about the Fubuki class DDs, Motoyuki-san has pointed out to me that only the #1 mount for most Japanese DDs had the horizontal stiffening strakes. This was a great surprise to me. A quick review of all available photos confirms that all the DD classes with either the Type B or C turrets have these stiffeners only on the #1 turret. There are horizontal handrails on #s 2 & 3 turrets, but no stiffeners.

The closeups of turrets 2 & 3 aboard damaged Shiranui in drydock in mid 1942 are excellent examples, as are the close-ups of Minegumo's damaged turrets 2 & 3 in Maru Special #19 in June 1941.

This means that both the new Haegawa and Tamiya 1/350 Yukikaze kits are in error. The stiffeners need to sanded off.

OTOH, ships with the Type D turret, Shimakaze and the Yugumos, do have the stiffening strakes on all three turrets.

[chuck]

Motoyuki-san has pointed out to me that only the #1 mount for most Japanese DDs had the horizontal stiffening strakes. This was a great surprise to me. .

Does that imply that these turrets were very lightly built, and were vulnerable to being distorted or dished in by heavy head seas? Which in turn might imply that are not splinter proof to a reasonable degree as often implied?

[Dan K]

I could not say, Chuck.

[Skiper]

I apologise from the beginning if someone else had asked this question but haven't found anything relevant. My question is this. I got 1/350 Hasegawa Yukikaze of 1940 configuration and I was wondering if Lion Roar's upgrade kit issued for the 1945 configuration can be used for the 1940 too. Will it be too innacurate to use it for the 1940 Yukikaze?

[Dan K]

Not so much inaccuarte as too elaborate, The 1940 configuration is much simpler.

[donalyah00]

... The 1940 configuration is much simpler.

Apart from removing moulded-in degaussing cable...

Regards,
Marek