1/350 IJN Fuso. Fujimi

[Tegethoff]

8 hours ago, Jagdtiger1 said:

Looking great Tegethoff! Really nice to see so much detail going into that smoke stack!

 

Btw, those antennae are actually type 13 air search radars.

 

James.

Ah OK, thank you. I guess in 1944 radars were far more common than five years earlier. They were a fun piece of PE to construct!

[Tegethoff]

Put together the hull, as PE seems beyond me today. 

 

The hull went together like a dream, barely needed glue. It is also engineered and strengthened significantly compared to Tamiya/Trumpeter. There was a small amount of flash on the hull spurs but easily removable, and the way the hull was attached to the sprue made cutting it so easy (looking at Trumpeter). Really well engineered thought process. Finally the secondary guns are reinforced by the struts within the hull, really clever idea. The deck looks great (and provides further structural support), but there are one or two places which may need to be shaved/filled slightly to match the hull closely. 

 

 

[Courageous]

Hull is looking rather cool.

 

Stuart

[Tegethoff]

Bit of a better day, was able to do some PE work. Slight update on the chimney, some railings, ladders and middle gun platform added in photo 1. The Chimney is now about 80% done - needing some touch up of PE and more railings+lights and guns. Photo 2 is the rear mast radio/gunnery platform which is about 50% done. Time for a refreshing drink.  

 

 

 

 

[Jerry L]

That is some great work!

[Tegethoff]

Not really an update, but just an interesting scale comparison all in 1/350. The arms race between initial dreadnoughts and super dreadnoughts between 1910-1920 is huge. 

L-R:
SMS Viribus Unitis, Austria Hungary laid down 1910, 12x305mm guns. c. 20,000 tons, 
IJN Kongo Fuso, Japan laid down 1912, 12x356mm guns, 29,330 tons as built, 34,700 as shown,
HMS Hood, United Kingdom laid down 1916, 8x381mm guns, 46,680 tons,

HMS Roberts, United Kingdom laid down 1940 2x 381mm guns, 7,970 tons,

 

 

 

Edited April 8 by Tegethoff
Incorrect vessel identification due to oppressive secrecy of naval build up.

[ArnoldAmbrose]

       Gidday @Tegethoff, it certainly is an interesting size comparison, especially the second photo. In the first photo the ships in the background are at a disadvantage. This is one of the reasons I like to build ships to a single scale, for size comparison. HMS Hood is very long, I think she was only 2 feet (600mm) shorter that IJN Yamato. I should compare her to my recent Flower class corvette sometime. 🙂 As an aside, I think that second ship is IJN Fuso, not Kongo. 🙂

And speaking of Fuso, I think the PE you've done looks very good and intricate. I'm looking forward to seeing more of her.       Regards, Jeff.

[Tegethoff]

25 minutes ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

       Gidday @Tegethoff, it certainly is an interesting size comparison, especially the second photo. In the first photo the ships in the background are at a disadvantage. This is one of the reasons I like to build ships to a single scale, for size comparison. HMS Hood is very long, I think she was only 2 feet (600mm) shorter that IJN Yamato. I should compare her to my recent Flower class corvette sometime. 🙂 As an aside, I think that second ship is IJN Fuso, not Kongo. 🙂

And speaking of Fuso, I think the PE you've done looks very good and intricate. I'm looking forward to seeing more of her.       Regards, Jeff.

Oops... That should be corrected now, I blame the secrecy with which the ships were built for preventing proper identification!

 

Thanks for spotting the error and for the compliments. I've been lucky to have so much help and advice in dealing with PE by yourself, Zoran Srb, S-boat 55, Chewbacca, Faraway, Thom-216 and others. Has really brought forward my confidence with PE. 

I didn't realise the Hood was almost the length of the Yamato. That is probably a ship too big and block like for my storage availability!  

[Thom216]

Great line-up! And geeze, Hood was massive.

[Tegethoff]

9 hours ago, Thom216 said:

Great line-up! And geeze, Hood was massive.

Agreed, I wonder if relative to later ships it was relatively under armed, but I guess it was more focussed on maximum speed, and probably a 381mm shell would still ruin most peoples day. 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

1 hour ago, Tegethoff said:

I wonder if relative to later ships it was relatively under armed, but I guess it was more focussed on maximum speed,

Yeah, she was a battlecruiser so the emphasis was on speed. Eight 15-inch guns was a match for anything in Europe I think, and nearly so against the American Colorado and Japanese Nagato classes, which were battleships.

       I could be wrong but I think the RN learned that increased sized rather than reduced armour alone gave the greater speed needed by battlecruisers. At Jutland the biggest ship was HMS Tiger, a battlecruiser.

Sorry Tegethoff, I'm digressing from you build of IJN Fuso here.       Regards, Jeff.

[Tegethoff]

7 minutes ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Yeah, she was a battlecruiser so the emphasis was on speed. Eight 15-inch guns was a match for anything in Europe I think, and nearly so against the American Colorado and Japanese Nagato classes, which were battleships.

       I could be wrong but I think the RN learned that increased sized rather than reduced armour alone gave the greater speed needed by battlecruisers. At Jutland the biggest ship was HMS Tiger, a battlecruiser.

Sorry Tegethoff, I'm digressing from you build of IJN Fuso here.       Regards, Jeff.

On a gunnery basis alone she should be close to Bismarck which is 20 years younger which is impressive. I don't understand how Hood was allowed/not scrapped in the Washington Naval Treaty, but its quite an impressive ship visually. 
On the other end of the spectrum you have HMS Roberts! Same gun, but no speed and little armour but used heavily in WW2 for land bombardment. Monitors are a unique ship I don't know if American or Japanese navies had equivalents?  

No problem, I posted the comparison for interest/while I take a bit of a break from the Fuso's photo etch!

[Tegethoff]

Might be a stupid question but how should I clean an airbrush of Mr Surfacer? I've switched from Tamiya aerosol cans(/it ran out) of primer to Mr Surfacer, and cleaning is hard. I usually paint with Acrylics, put in some Vallejo Airbrush cleaner, then water then airbrush cleaner cleaning with a brush, but this seems to coagulate the Mr Surfacer badly. Any pointers much appreciated. 

[Tegethoff]

Railings and ladders done. Now 95% done. Need to tidy up, and add the ladders that connect the structure to the deck. Will probably do that after the chimney is attached to the deck at some point in future. I need to work out what to do to the Deck. Probably will prime/paint the exposed parts then put down a wooden deck on mostly raw plastic? 

 

 

[S-boat 55]

On 09/04/2023 at 13:22, ArnoldAmbrose said:

 

       I could be wrong but I think the RN learned that increased sized rather than reduced armour alone gave the greater speed needed by battlecruisers. At Jutland the biggest ship was HMS Tiger, a battlecruiser.

 

 I believe it comes down to hull form in that speed can be increased without changing overall power just by changing the ratio of a ships beam to her length along with draught, I forget what the ratio is though, 

 

On 09/04/2023 at 13:36, Tegethoff said:

I don't understand how Hood was allowed/not scrapped in the Washington Naval Treaty, but its quite an impressive ship visually. 
 

If I understand correctly (without digging into to double check), Hood was commissioned in 1920 and so was pre Washington. As a result she was included in the overall tonnage allowed for Britain with the RN opting to scrap older ships. It was only ships still under construction in 1922 that were affected and either had to be converted to carriers (up to a max of two) or scrapped. 

 

Your funnel continues to look just so impressive, I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of her progress. The Japanese ships are so fascinating to look at, 

[Courageous]

On 4/12/2023 at 11:59 AM, Tegethoff said:

Mr Surfacer

Mr Surfacer will need a lacquer thinner to clean it from your airbrush.

As has already been mentioned, impressive funnel work.

 

Stuart

 

[Tegethoff]

1 hour ago, Courageous said:

Mr Surfacer will need a lacquer thinner to clean it from your airbrush.

As has already been mentioned, impressive funnel work.

Thank you! Is something like Mr Tool Cleaner right or Mr Brush Cleaner liquid or something else? 

 

 

On 12/04/2023 at 19:48, S-boat 55 said:

If I understand correctly (without digging into to double check), Hood was commissioned in 1920 and so was pre Washington. As a result she was included in the overall tonnage allowed for Britain with the RN opting to scrap older ships. It was only ships still under construction in 1922 that were affected and either had to be converted to carriers (up to a max of two) or scrapped. 

 

Your funnel continues to look just so impressive, I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of her progress. The Japanese ships are so fascinating to look at, 

That would make some sense, I just find it odd that a 35(?),000 ton new battleship cap was imposed and Hood was just sailing around at 30% more than that! I guess it is the 1920's equivalent of this video (some swearing - apologies): Agreed r.e. the Japanese look, but the hull and shape (and in some ways the lower levels of the pagoda tower) actually quite closely resembles some of the Hood and earlier super-dreadnaught styles of British assemblies. I know the Kongo was built in the UK but  the design thought clearly still lived on to future generations. 

 

[S-boat 55]

3 hours ago, Tegethoff said:

dd that a 35(?),000 ton new battleship cap was imposed and Hood was just sailing around at 30% more than that! I guess it is the 1920's equivalent of this video (some swearing - apologies): Agreed r.e. the Japanese look, but the hull and shape (and in some ways the lower levels of the pagoda tower) actually quite closely resembles some of the Hood and earlier  styles of British assemblies. I know the Kongo was built in the UK but  the design thought clearly still lived on to future generations. 

 

I wondered if the tonnage limit per ship only came in with the second London treaty in the 30's, up until then it was just gross tonnage of a given class of ships?  Sources seem to conflict on it, I'm gonna have do some digging on it now, you've made me curious, 

 

EDIT - Having now done some more reading on it I think it's due to how the treaty was worded (again don't hold me to it). 

 

Article V stipulated that the signatory nation's could not 'aquire or construct' a ship greater than 35,000t. This leaves a nice loophole for Hood, the only ship then commissioned that was over the 35,000 figure. Had it of said 'each nation may not posses a ship of greater than X tonnage' then She would have had to of been disposed off. She is certainly on the list of permitted ships in section 2 of the treaty. The interesting thing is that the wording on maximum gun size is different - stipulating clearly that no ship may have greater than 16in calibre gund. The difference in the wording to me indicates it was deliberately done and likely to accommodate HMS Hood. That's a touch of assumption on my part though, 

 

Edited April 13 by S-boat 55

[Tegethoff]

9 hours ago, S-boat 55 said:

 

I wondered if the tonnage limit per ship only came in with the second London treaty in the 30's, up until then it was just gross tonnage of a given class of ships?  Sources seem to conflict on it, I'm gonna have do some digging on it now, you've made me curious, 

 

EDIT - Having now done some more reading on it I think it's due to how the treaty was worded (again don't hold me to it). 

 

Article V stipulated that the signatory nation's could not 'aquire or construct' a ship greater than 35,000t. This leaves a nice loophole for Hood, the only ship then commissioned that was over the 35,000 figure. Had it of said 'each nation may not posses a ship of greater than X tonnage' then She would have had to of been disposed off. She is certainly on the list of permitted ships in section 2 of the treaty. The interesting thing is that the wording on maximum gun size is different - stipulating clearly that no ship may have greater than 16in calibre gund. The difference in the wording to me indicates it was deliberately done and likely to accommodate HMS Hood. That's a touch of assumption on my part though, 

 

A loop hole big enough to drive a 47,000 ton ship through... I miss the days where international treaties were concise and understandable. Thanks for checking. 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

1 hour ago, Tegethoff said:

A loop hole big enough to drive a 47,000 ton ship through... I miss the days where international treaties were concise and understandable.

       Gidday, I don't know the finer intricacies of the Washington Treaty but I sometimes get the impression it was to prevent the next quantum leap in capital ships - 18-inch guns and the necessary increase in size and cost that would have eventuated. I know it also stopped the large 16-inch gun ships started by the US and Japan, ships that Britain had none to counter at the time. Only HMS Hood came close AFAIK. Even the 16-inch gun Capital Ship race would have been horrendously expensive for Britain I think. My thoughts anyway, and open to correction if I'm wrong. 🙂

       Regards, Jeff.

[S-boat 55]

36 minutes ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

       Gidday, I don't know the finer intricacies of the Washington Treaty but I sometimes get the impression it was to prevent the next quantum leap in capital ships - 18-inch guns and the necessary increase in size and cost that would have eventuated. I know it also stopped the large 16-inch gun ships started by the US and Japan, ships that Britain had none to counter at the time. Only HMS Hood came close AFAIK. Even the 16-inch gun Capital Ship race would have been horrendously expensive for Britain I think. My thoughts anyway, and open to correction if I'm wrong. 🙂

       Regards, Jeff.

I believe British plans were the G3 battlecruisers with 9x16in and then the N3 battleships with potentially larger guns again. Truth be told the admiralty were already of the opinion that Hoods design had fundamental flaws that were not worth the effort to correct hence her sisters being cancelled. Still I digress and should stop my witterings about things other than Fuso, 

[Tegethoff]

Starting to think about how to paint the main tower as I start construction as I see it:
 

1) Paint everything at once at the end after construction (pro - is easy, con - paint will miss some areas)
2) make several sub assemblies and  paint them before constructing them together and final paint layer once at the end when combined.
3) Paint each level individually pre construction. 
 

I think no 2 is the right way. Does anyone know if the floors were painted a different colour to the walls/structure? I think I am very glad that there is no camouflage on this...

 

[S-boat 55]

Sorry me again, I'd say number 2 for sure, 

 

Re colours, from researching my Taiho build it seemed everything was generally the same grey with the exception of any linoleum covered areas which were a brownish colour with the decks themselves partially held down by straps, 

 

Sam

[IJNfan]

Great work on one of my favorite IJN battleships. 

[Zoran Srb]

9 hours ago, Tegethoff said:

Starting to think about how to paint the main tower as I start construction as I see it:
 

1) Paint everything at once at the end after construction (pro - is easy, con - paint will miss some areas)
2) make several sub assemblies and  paint them before constructing them together and final paint layer once at the end when combined.
3) Paint each level individually pre construction. 
 

I think no 2 is the right way. Does anyone know if the floors were painted a different colour to the walls/structure? I think I am very glad that there is no camouflage on this...

 

I did as third variant...  Each level separately...Add to that complete weathering, and then assembly... Once assembled, I just carefully sprayed joints with matt varnish.

I've painted floors same color as walls, since I found no sign of linoleum representation on kit (apart from "flight deck"....

Edited April 16 by Zoran Srb