The Ship Model Forum

Further complicating the picture is the fact that the Type II ships had two groups of vessels with different sized funnels. The early ships (Uranami, Ayanami, Shikanami, Asagiri, Amagiri, Sagiri, Yugiri) all had taller funnels after refit than the last four ships (Oboro, Akebono, Sazanami & Ushio). Yet, all had the same revised raked funnel cap.

The difference in height between the first 6 and last 4 ships appears to be approximately 1 meter (my estimate). If you refer to the same Type II photo comparison above, Amagiri’s funnel cap tops out just above the canvas roof of the lookout position atop the compass bridge, while Oboro’s ends just below that canvas roofline.

The Type IIIs are notable because their #1 funnel is noticeable thinner then those the previous Types. This change stems from a reduction in the number of boilers feeding the #1 funnel from two to one. I believe that all the Type III ships were completed with raked funnel caps on the rear funnel and probably rose to the revised, shorter height of the funnels of the last 4 Type II ships. The colorized photo of Akatsuki 1937 on p. 1 or Inazuma on trials after refit 1936 (without final rangefinder) below is typical of the Type III funnel configuration.

Tamiya’s funnels for the Type I kits are nicely shaped and properly raked. However, the funnel caps that come with the kit are only appropriate for the first, revised configuration of the Type Is where the funnels were raised very high up relative to the bridge. The caps need to be cut down considerably to be appropriate for a wartime Type I Fubuki.

I consider the funnels that come with Tamiya’s Type II & III kits to be OK. In all cases, the caps really need some sort of photoetch or brass to replicate the grills on top.

For modeling purposes, PitRoad cheated and did not provide proper funnels for Type Is. The kits come only with funnels appropriate for Type II and III ships. The only good solution is to either scratchbuild a funnel or kitbash a funnel from another DD. Reshaping a kit funnel seems the least satisfying option.

For my PitRoad Type I, I chose to kitbash a Tamiya Fubuki Type I kit after looking at several possibilities, including the PItRoad Mutsuki and Kamikaze kits. The Tamiya version was the right height (without cap) and rake, but both funnel halves needed to be shaved down to match the width of the funnel base. The base also needs to be reshaped fore and aft to meet the funnel bottom. I guess I should also note that the Tamiya kit’s funnels are different sizes, with #1 funnel being both taller (the bases are different heights) and more appropriate. So, you actually need two #1 funnels from a Tamiya Fubuki Type I.

PitRoad does provide a tall and short versions of the Type II funnel, with different grill caps, as well as for Type III fore funnel. However, the funnel cap/grill arrangement is pitiful. In profile, there should be an unbroken line, for both the front and back of the funnel, from the top to bottom. The kit cap is raked at the wrong angle front and back. You have to sand it to the correct line. It’s actually easier to cut off the grill work (esp. if you were inclined to scratch build grills) and flip the cap upside down. At least the front line lines up correctly in profile. The caps are also too wide. It's really a pain to get right.)

Thanks again for these useful infos and clarifications about funnels.

I bet the next step will be about the different TT used in these ships

cheers

Gilbert

Actually, I wanted to complete the funnel ventilators. TTs can come later.

Torpedoes & Tubes

My information on torpedoes types carried is a little thin. What I have states that all ships were designed to carry a 24 inch/61cm torpedo from the outset, in 3 mounts of 3 tubes each. The original torpedo was the Type 8 electric, subsequently changed to the Type 90 electric during the refits of the 1930s. The Type 93 oxygen powered “Long Lance” was not fitted to any of the Fubuki types until late 1943 when 6 of the remaining ships were so equipped: Akebono, Hibiki, Uranami, Ushio, Usugumo and Yugiri.

While the Type 93 was longer than than the Type 90, the tubes themselves were not modified, only various access points on the tubes for adjustments to particulars like speed setting, etc.

The original, unshielded triple mounting was derived from the proceeding Mutsuki class and known as the Type 12 Kai I. Weather shields were added during the 1930 refits.

Nine reloads were carried.

Note: see notes on page 5, June 22, 2010 about clarifications to this information.

It’s worth noting that while the Type I & II ships were launched with unshielded tubes that were later modified with shields, I believe the Type III ships were equipped with shielded torpedo tubes from the outset. But, I’m not certain of it.


Tamiya’s kits come with both shielded and unshielded torpedo tube mounts, but, they are too short and not particularly detailed. The small ship equipment set from the waterline consortium, originally marketed by Leviathan, and then subsequently by Tamiya, Hasegawa, etc., carries a more detailed version of the shielded mount, but it’s still underscale.

The PitRoad Fubuki kits come with a nicely detailed, unshielded version that is the correct length, but appropriate for only the original, as launched versions of the ships. A sprue from their #10 Equipment DD set, meant for destroyers, is also included. It carries a shielded triple mount.

However, two points must be made. This triple tube shielded version comes with a cupola (meant for the Hatsuharu class) which must be removed. Also, the shield should have two short parallel (to the ship’s axis) sides, which this unit does not. Some sanding is required (which I have done.)

The Leviathan version does not have a cupola and does have the correct shield configuration. It is possible to graft the fore and aft ends of the tubes from the PitRoad version onto the body of the Leviathan mount, but the body is still a bit short in overall height. Still, it would be more representative of the actual mount.

(Amended 1-15-2010: After some study, I am changing my view about creating the most correct version of the TT mounts. Correct TT mounts are available from either the E-38/E-2 or Leviathan(Tamiya/Hasegawa/Aoshima) light ordnance sets. Both sets offer a triple TT housing without a cupola. The cupola version is meant for the Hatsuharu type; however, this version is much more squarish in profile that those used for the Fubuki Type and therefore not appropriate.

In all cases, none of these are long enough. As above, one has to cut off the tubes, fore and aft, and replace them with the fore and aft ends taken from the Hatsuharu type triple shield mounts on the PitRoad E-10 DD equipment set. What a pain - I have to redo all my mounts now for my builds.)

(Note #2 12-14-2012: Pit-Road has released a new 1/700 IJN accessory set that is torpedo specific. In it are corrected shields and tubes for the Fubuki class, among others. Fantastic! See - http://www.hlj.com/product/PITNE-04 )



Below are two photos. The top is of Shinome’s midsection in 1930 and shows all three mounts. What’s so very interesting about this photo is that mount #s 1 & 3 are unshielded while #2 is shielded. I’m not certain if this was a test model, or just Shinome showing a partial refitting. Also of interest is the exposed torpedo on a dolley, probably a Type 8.

The bottom photo is of Shirayuki under attack in the Bismarck Sea in 1943. Mounts 2 & 3 can be seen. Note the shape of the shields, especially the sides.

Thanks again Dan for these very useful and detailed infos. I wonder why the Fubuki class DDs were not fitted with The Type 93 oxygen powered “Long Lance” before late 1943. I think I have read somewhere because Type 93 was in short supply. Could you please confirm ?

Cheers

Gilbert

Unfortunately,Gilbert, I can't confim such a shortage. By my count, Shirakumo, Shikanami, Amagiri, Sazanami, Ikazuchi and Inazuma are still around by late 1943. However, most of these ships seemed to operate out of Singapore and the Phillipines, with few visits to Japanese waters. So, it just may be the lack of access to specialized facilities.

Good point Dan . This makes sense

Cheers

Gilbert

Air Intakes/hoods at the base of the funnels

Type I Ships

These vessels had 3 sets of prominent intakes, one either side of funnel #1, another set in front of funnel #2 and a third set immediate aft funnel #2. These can be seen in any of the full view photos of a Type I vessel already posted (Isonami, Hatsuyuki) or in the photo of Shinome’s midsection above. The searchlight aft funnel #2 sits atop the 3rd set of intakes.

However, what is not clearly realized is that set #s 2 & 3 are actually 2 intakes contained within one structure, bisected by an internal division. These single, integrated housings can be seen clearly from the front in the midsection shot of Usugumo below. If you look closely at the intakes in front of and aft #2 funnel, you can even see the horizontal support strakes across the surface of the intake.

A close-up cropping of the Shirayuki 1943 photo gives an excellent view of all 3 sets of ventilators from astern. Set #s 2 & 3 are immediately fore and aft the funnel.

Tamiya’s Type I kits have nicely formed ventilators with oversized edges. The #1 set is nicely represented, but the #2 set is mistakenly broken into two separate units, and the #3 set is omitted.

PitRoad has correctly molded all three sets, with #s 2 & 3 correctly molded as one housing. You will have to make your own internal divisions, though.

Hi Dan
Any inklings on the status of the Finemolds 350 Fubuki? Will we see it this year?

Thanks for the infos and tips, Dan, very useful (as always )

Gilbert

FineMolds displayed plan views of its 1/350 Fubuki Type II at the recent Shizuoka show so, it's still on as far as I know.

Air Intakes/hoods at the base of the funnels

Type II & III Ships

The air intakes changed radically to a more compact, integrated design for the follow-on classes. The intakes were placed under a hood that ringed each funnel a few meters above the main deck, just high enough to clear most of the deck equipment and torpedo mounts. This design was successful enough to warrant repetition in similar form for every subsequent destroyer class.

Uranami (IA), Ayanami, Shikanami, Asagiri, Amagiri, and Sagiri (II) all have the original version of these hoods, which bulged downward in a bulbous fashion. Yugiri and the last 4 built Type IIs – Oboro, Akebone, Sazanami & Ushio - all have a revised hood that differs by sweeping upwards at the rear. This revision was carried over to the 4 Type III vessels as well.

I’ve reposted the photo comparison between Oboro, Amagiri and Ayanami to show the differences between the two types of hooded intakes. Also included is a shot of Ushio’s midsection after her 1943 refit that illustrates the revised version, plus a cropping of Inazuma's midsection in 1936.

For modeling: PitRoad has sort of botched this point by issuing a part that appears to be a compromise between the two versions of the hood while serving neither accurately. Though the topside of the hooded intakes is very nicely done, the undersides resemble neither version. It’s even worse for the fore funnel of any of the Type III ships.

You’ll have to do some alterations. For an early hood, it’s possible to add a strip of styrene to mimic the line of the base. A later style hood, including the Type III fore funnel hood, requires some filing away of the rear to mimic the upsweep at the rear. Interestingly, Tamiya’s kits all are correct for the initial version of the intake so, it might be possible to do some kit bashing here.

(As a side note, this is why my build of Sazanami in the Gallery is inaccurate; it has the early hooded intakes, as provided by Tamiya. It is more likely representative of Amagiri or Shikanami in late 1943-early 1944, though I have to remove the Type 13 radar on the aft mast and take new photos.)

Depth Charge Racks and Mine Rails

The new PitRoad kits (all 3 types) depict the depth charge rack in its ORIGINAL, as-built configuration. This is the split rack configuration with separate depth charge throw mortars, as illustrated by the Akatsuki 1932 and Ushio 1931 stern diagrams below. Credit- plans via Motoyuki Iwashige, I think originally Kojinsha Mechanisms of IJN DDs. Incidentally, Jeff Lin’s build of Ushio in its original configuration depicts this set-up very well.

This arrangement was changed for all types to the more common single rack and twin throw mortar, illustrated by the Hatsuyuki 1936 & Uranami 1937 diagrams.

Note also that while the new PitRoad kits uniformly have the mine rails arranged so as to splay out slightly, the actual ships varied considerably. Many had the mine rails in parallel. In fact, it is my opinion that virtually all class members had the rails moved to a parallel alignment and shortened slightly by wartime.

While the rails were retained, use of the mine rails for their original purpose also seems to have been discarded by the refits of the mid 1930s. Instead, it appears that the rails were used as either a) additional depth charge storage, or b) as drop off racks for the charges themselves, but with charges oriented parallel with the ship. See the 3 photos below:

Photo #1 is an overhead of Fubuki 1940 and one can make out the parallel mine rails and single depth charge rack athwartships at the stern. Credit: Kaijinsha History of IJN DDs. #2 shows the single rack with depth charges stored on the mine rails behind it. Credit: MS #21, Gakken #18 & Kojninsha Mechanisms of IJN DDs. Identified as either Type II or III, depending on the source. #2 shows a DesDiv 7 ship, probably Ushio or Sazanami in early 1942, with depth charges clearly visible on the mine rails.

The mid to late war refits included roll-off depth charge racks at the stern for the remaining members of the class, though not all ships might have received them. Below is an enlargement of Ushio’s stern after her 1943 refit, with the roll-off racks.

Thanks, Dan (Toku-gata Sensei ), for these very useful infos.

Gilbert

I've still got a few more topics to cover.

Foremasts

The Fubuki class set the standard foremast design for all the following 1st class IJN DDs with a large, wide stance, tripod legged foremast. Of course, there are variations by subgroup, and by refit. One unique aspect of the forward leg of the tripod for the Toku-gata type, versus later destroyers, is that base of the leg is mounted to the rear of the lower aft portion of the bridge, as opposed to having the base of the mast rest on the forecastle deck. The photo of Usugumo’s bridge on p.1 shows this aspect to good effect. Another shot of Fubuki after modernization below exemplifies the basic structure of the simple tripod, along with its wide stance.

For Type Is

I believe that the Type I’s maintained their original, as-built large tripod throughout most of their lives, at least until the surviving members of the group received the addition of Type 22 radars in late 1943-44, which necessitated the reconstruction of the upper portion of the tripod to accommodate the radar. Members that did receive the revised foremast and Type 22 radar include Shirakumo and Uusagumo. It is also possible that Hatsuyuki received the same refit, though the timing of her last substantial visit for repairs (Kure- late March-April 1943) is on the early side for receiving a full upgrade.

The photo record for Type Is during wartime is sparse. That said, and as the cropping of Shirayuki at the Bismarck Sea (March 1943) below shows, there seems to be little change in the basic mast structure until the refits for carrying radar. The Type Is had one main crossbar between the two trailing legs at height of the bridge topped rangefinder, and a smaller solid platform above it to support a small 2kw signal light added during the major refits of the mid 1930s. All of this appears unchanged here in early 1943.

Unfortunately, I am unaware of any photos of a Type I carrying radar late in the war, so while impossible to substantiate, it seems likely that changes to the foremast tripod for these ships is identical to that for the Type II & III ships.

Both Tamiya and PitRoad seem to have done a good job on replicating the tripod mast for this type. Their versions for a revised, radar equipped foremast are simplistic, yet still evocative. In both cases, the mast legs would benefit from the use of thinner brass rods instead of kit styrene.

For Type IIs

The write-up is not yet complete but here is a nice comparison drawing of the original masts for Type I vs. Type II ships from the Gran Prix Shuppan volume on IJN DDs. Type I Hatsuyuki’s is depicted on the left, Type II Sazanami’s in the middle and Sagiri’s on the right. There were actually more substantial changes to the trailing legs of the Type II mast than is depicted here, which I will explain in my next posting.

Thanks Dan for these useful infos .

As a side note, I have noticed on the Shirayuki's photo that brass stripes covering linoleum seem to be put on both ways (Transversal and longitudinal). You can clearly notice it behind the boat's davits. This is new to me as I have always thought that such a disposition was used only for some cruisers (like Takao's class). AFAIK, IJN DDs had only the usual transversal brass stripes.

Any thoughts ?

TIA
Gilbert