Calling all IJN Fuso (扶桑) and Yamashiro (山城) fans

[Atma]

So if I use the Skywave guns on the Yamashiro, the Aoshima kit's unused, wrong, main guns aren't good at all for other kits?

Spare parts. Always nice to have some.

Slight off-topic...did you ever build a model of the Norwegian warships Norge and Eidsvold?

No Im terrible in scrathcbuilding.

[Atma]

At the moment I am in pre-dreadnought frenzy(French and British thanks to Combrig). Also lately the Austro-Hungarian Navy has my attention, the last time I have build a post WWI subject was when the new 1/350 IJN Yamato from Tamiya and 1/700 IJN Mogami from Fujimi was out.

[Haijun watcher]

First of all wrong stern planking, wrong turret tops, inaccurate funnel base .

Mr. Atma,

Could you please elaborate on what I bolded above?

Here are pictures of both the Fujimi 1941 Yamashiro and the Aoshima 1942 Yamashiro.

On quick inspection, I don't see any difference in the funnel base of the two models.

Fujimi 1941 Yamashiro (pic from 1999.co.jp)


Aoshima 1942 Yamashiro (pic from global rakuten.com)


Perhaps there was a Yamashiro companion book of the the Skulski book on the Fuso, it would be a big help in those building her sister ship.

[Atma]

The Aoshima's IJN Yamashiro funnel base is way to simplified compared to IJN Yamashiro from Fujimi.

[Gaston]

I don't know if this has been covered before, but Fujimi in 1/350 used the very same hull moulds to make the Yamashiro out of the (correct) Fuso... This means the anchor position is much too far forward for the Yamashiro, and that the prominent rear left bulge is completely wrong, being way, way too shallow...

This would be very hard to correct and is very obvious. Don't do what I did, and buy just the Fuso kit instead...

If this is the way they would have done the Hyuga, it might be just as well that they didn't...

Gaston

[chazi]

Hello everyone.

I would like to ask You about shell platting on hull of ijn fuso or yamashiro battleship. I dont know if exist something like this.
Maybe on other battleships shell platting was simmilar?
I try to build IJN Fuso in scale 1:100 based on Anatomy of the ship J .Skulski and card model from publisher A.Halinski.

Best regards
Chris

[Dan K]

Photos that I have are not clear enough to show individual plates, only the horizontal bands of plating.

[chazi]

Hi Dan

Can You show us Your photos?

Thanks
Best regads
Chris

[Dan K]

Only two. See captions for credit

[chazi]

Hi .
Thank You Dan.

I thought that You have a something different then these photos. I saw these pictures in internet.

[Dan K]

I've not found any close-ups for these two. Any plating pattern has to be inferred from similar classes.

[Haijun watcher]

Does anyone know if the Flyhawk PE for Aoshima's retake kit, at the link below is for the 1942 or 1944 1/700 Yamashiro kit?

Ebay link

It doesn't say at either the Flyhawk or White Ensign Models site what period kit the PE set is for. Just wanted to get an answer to confirm just in case the vendor for this ad just say something just to get me to buy his wares.

[Atma]

Its for 1944.

[Allan McBeath]

Ive got it. Remember the Aoshima 44 isnt in its correct configuration on the top levels of the pagoda. Here its totally wrong and in its 1942 fit. Ironically the box art is right but the contents dont reflect this in the slightest. The Flyhawk pe is incorrect for the top 2 levels of the pagoda. ( or is it 3?) It provides open grillwork that was welded over in last refit. Of course youll have to totally scratch build the top 2 levels as well.

I also seem to remember inaccuracy in profile on one of the searchlight gantries around the chimney.

A much easier startling point would be a Fugimi kit and less PE in my view.

[Haijun watcher]

Ive got it. Remember the Aoshima 44 isnt in its correct configuration on the top levels of the pagoda. Here its totally wrong and in its 1942 fit. Ironically the box art is right but the contents dont reflect this in the slightest. The Flyhawk pe is incorrect for the top 2 levels of the pagoda. ( or is it 3?) It provides open grillwork that was welded over in last refit. Of course youll have to totally scratch build the top 2 levels as well.

So essentially you're saying the Flyhawk PE is incorrect for the Aoshima's 1944 Yamashiro, but what if one already has the 1942 retake kit of Aoshima's Yamashiro?

Couldn't one use part of the Flyhawk PE set meant of the 1944 one?

[Allan McBeath]

Ill try to be totally clear
The Aoshima kit is totally inaccurate in the upper decks of the pagoda. No amount of pe can change this. Its not a little different in 44 its totally different. The decks are much larger rebuilds outfitted with more optics for AAA. You must totally rebuild these decks to make a 44 Yamashiro.

The Flyhawk pe looks great and fits the kit well. As such you will build a totally nice 1942 Yamashiro with it. In 44 the pe is totally wrong in the top 3 decks of the pagoda. Nothings going to change that. Flyhawk used 42 references same as Aoshima and faithfully made the wrong pe set.
Modified you can use the searchlight gantries but these require some alteration. Their plan profile is not a T as in the kit it is a rectangle in plan. Youll find this out quick enough when you bend them into shape and they dont fit

This is of course without mentioning the AAA additions to the ship. I cant remember how many 25mm and 13mm guns added. like 40 ish . Its been a long time I cant remember.

Frankly building a 44 Yamashiro with the Aoshima kit is going to require scratch building. References of the Yamashiro in 44 are very poor. Personally Id chalk this one up to experience and buy a Fujimi kit. It has some minor errors around the rear hull bulge and anchors. Fankly a lot easier to fix than pagoda decks with poor references.

[Haijun watcher]

Thanks for your feedback. My intention is to build a 1942 Yamashiro anyways with the 1/700 Aoshima kit I have.

However, I do aim to buy a 1/700 1944 Yamashiro from Fujimi in the future.

[Allan McBeath]

Thats fine then. Kits is fine for 42. Just remember no radar. You can check the refit dates from the TROMS over at combined fleet. For a 42 Id buy the Flyhawk set. Happy modeling

[Atma]

Why not buy a 1942 Fujimi kit too
Anyway, IJN Yamashiro after 1943 is the most obscure Imperial Japanese Battleship. So few documentations. Its hard to find any information about what radars and what light AA changes happened and when. Her sister IJN Fuso is more easy to do a research.
The reason for this is that IJN Fuso somehow is more famous and very few documentation survived for IJN Yamashiro cause the shipyard responsible for her 1943+ update(s) was totally destroyed by WWII bombing.
I came to believe that what is norm for today 1944 period IJN Yamashiro is almost based on assumptions. Im not sure even if it had a type 22 radar, a norm for late war Imperial Japanese warships.

[Atma]

Also in page number "7"(link :viewtopic.php?f=47&t=30966&start=120) there is some discussion between me and Dan, of what might a IJN Yamshiro looked like in 1944. Dan posted an interesting picture from Ishibashi book and is considered top rate. Still the Ishibashi book pictures IJN Yamshiro without even a AA command platform in the top of the Pagoda, not even radars !
In my opinion if you are obsessed with accuracy choose the Fujimi kit for a late war IJN Yamashiro, else choose a 1942 version from either Aoshima or Fujimi.
Good luck with the IJN Yamshiro riddle :p