Shimakaze by Landlubber Mike - FINISHED - Hasegawa - 1:350 - PLASTIC - Japanese WWII Destroyer

[Landlubber Mike]

Good to know Greg, thank you.  On my 1/700, I used thinned Vallejo black primer on the hull and had no issues.  I painted over it with a mixture of Vallejo Model Air grey paints and everything adhered nicely.  I've found Vallejo works pretty well, it's just that it can be touchy if you want to tape.  Even then, I really only had issues with the black and grey primers lifting on my model planes for some reason.

 

For this 1/350, I was thinking of priming with Mr Surfacer from the rattle can.  It goes on a very light gray and coverage is excellent, but I also have their black primer in a rattle can.  I think I have some Tamiya white primer in the rattle can too, as well as the Hull Red in a rattle can (forget if it's Tamiya or Mr. Hobby).  What I might do is black base it with Mr. Surfacer, and then spray grays on top.  Tamiya makes a Maizuru Arsenal paint so I'm going to use that as the gray base.

 

Have you used Mr. Hobby Mr. Metal Primer?  For the 1/700 railings and other small PE parts like the guns, I sprayed the fret with this, then sprayed thinned Vallejo black primer followed by thinned Vallejo Model Air grey.  Worked perfectly.

 

 

It also comes in the little glass jar with brush in the cap, but I haven't had an opportunity to try that yet.

 

 

Looks like Tamiya has similar products out there.

 

[Egilman]

On 7/21/2019 at 2:56 PM, Landlubber Mike said:

 I know some reduce the plastic kit hull below the waterline for dioramas, but this particular model has a lower hull of only about an inch, which should make it fairly simple.

Yeah, that's one way, and if the kit is split along the waterline, you can get a real good result for fairly flat seas.... But what I've found if you want to do any serious seaway above dead flat, you need a full hull... This is why I use the carve the hull into the foam technique.... You can model an active seaway in this manner..... Smaller ships look better in non-smooth water, especially a destroyer with a bone in it's teeth chasing a sub, or making a high speed torpedo pass....

 

It does make the base deeper, but the trade off is a more defined seaway imparting action in it's natural environment... Imagine the Tamaroa in 90 ft seas.... No one's done that yet that I know of.... Or the SS Pendleton and Fort Mercer rescues in 70 foot seas.... (USCGC Acushnet WMEC-167 for the Fort Mercer rescue) Those are extremes I know, but it proves one thing, you need a full hull to do seaways in action, no matter the size of the ship....

[Canute]

Mike, do you have this page for Shimakaze: http://www.combinedfleet.com/shimak_c.htm

 

Seems to be the epitome of the Japanese fixation on annihilating the opponent's major surface combatants in an all out surface battle. They had the premiere weapon for that, the Long Lance torpedo, which Shimakaze took to almost an extreme. But it is an elegant destroyer.

[Egilman]

1 hour ago, Canute said:

Mike, do you have this page for Shimakaze: http://www.combinedfleet.com/shimak_c.htm

 

Seems to be the epitome of the Japanese fixation on annihilating the opponent's major surface combatants in an all out surface battle. They had the premiere weapon for that, the Long Lance torpedo, which Shimakaze took to almost an extreme. But it is an elegant destroyer.

The Long Lance torpedo was right up there in effectiveness department.... was considered the second best torpedo design pre WWII behind the Italian Mk 18.....

 

What made them most effective though was the Japanese tactical usage of them.... They viewed a torpedo as a one shot weapon, use it before you lose it.... so their tactical doctrine called for them being fired before they went into a general gunfire battle.... (ie,  once your in a gun battle it's next to impossible to do the precise maneuvering necessary for effective torpedo attack, as the US Navy learned to serious effect) The Japanese would formulate their battle plan so they would fire their torpedoes at the start of the battle guesstimating the maneuvers of the enemy once the engagement started..... They would shoot their torpedoes at where the enemy ships would be or would have to go to, (once the gun battle started) from long range...... Gun battles using optical gun control necessitated closing the range as quickly as possible, either crossing the "T" or bringing the battle line closer together so the guns would be at their most effective range... Direct approach to the target, and turn one way or the other..... In close quarters where maneuvering is restricted by shore lines and shoals the enemy's movement can be predicted given the positions of the ships and the prevalent tactics used at the time...

 

The Japanese, using their tactical doctrine, would fire at where the ships had to go.... A huge tactical advantage with a torpedo that could range out to 25k yards, (outer limit of gun range for cruisers) This doctrine was devastating in the battles around Savo Island and throughout the Guadalcanal campaign.... In several battles, our heavy cruiser battle lines were pretty much disabled before they could really get into effective gun range allowing the Japanese to destroy them with shellfire......

 

Most of our torpedoes, (Destroyers & Cruisers) went down with their ships...

 

Later in the war, it was less effective cause we had learned that closing quickly was not the right tactic, backing off and bringing in aircraft was the right tactic....

 

Hard lessons learned.....

Edited March 8, 2021 by Egilman

[Landlubber Mike]

Haven't seen that page yet Ken, thanks for passing it along!  Some cool pictures on that page.  

 

The Shimakaze didn't have many opportunities to use its formidable arsenal, and doesn't have much of a military career.  With its speed and armament, it could have been really nasty in a fight.  Interestingly, when researching this ship, it's one of the most powerful ships in one of those online warship games.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Landlubber Mike

[lmagna]

3 hours ago, Landlubber Mike said:

Interestingly, when researching this ship, it's one of the most powerful ships in one of those online warship games.

Stands to reason when at least on paper this single ship carried the ability to take out or even sink a battleship if used properly. Think what could have happened if instead of the USS Johnston and Taffy Three vs. the Japanese it had been this ship maned with the same determined and trained crew under the same conditions in the battle of Taffy Three off Samar! In fact if the US had had a torpedo as effective as the Long Lance going into WWII the entire war would have been over in very short order even after the losses at Pearl Harbor. 

[RGL]

I find rattle can,  can loose detail, but an acrylic primer cones off PE when you mask it. 

[Egilman]

42 minutes ago, lmagna said:

In fact if the US had had a torpedo as effective as the Long Lance going into WWII the entire war would have been over in very short order even after the losses at Pearl Harbor. 

Yeah we had a real problem there for the first year and a half of the war, it wasn't the torpedo itself, guidance was the main issue, no guarantee that when fired they would go where they were targeted... then the second issue reared it's head, IF they ran correctly, (a big "IF") and happened to strike a target, there was a 40% chance they would fail to detonate.... (even with the failure to detonate problem, if they had ran straight and accurate, many many more Japanese ships would have been sent to the bottom a lot earlier in the war than they actually were)

 

All that changed with the The Armistice of Cassibile September 3rd '43, the Italians surrendered and the Regia Marina's agreement to surrender themselves to the allies rather than be taken by the Germans, they brought with them the Mk 18 torpedo, or more important it's guidance system... It was specifically mentioned in the negotiations that the US Navy wanted it.... They turned it over when they surrendered at Malta... It was adapted to US Navy torpedoes by February 1944, You hear no reports of serious issues with our torpedoes after that.....

 

The early war disaster that our torpedoes were, was a closely held military secret.... Every bit as tight a secret as Ultra, The Manhattan project, UHF Radar and the Mark 24 mine.....

Edited March 9, 2021 by Egilman

[Egilman]

5 minutes ago, RGL said:

I find rattle can,  can loose detail, but an acrylic primer cones off PE when you mask it. 

It's really hard to put down a thin consistent coat with rattlecans, you have to spray so far away from the object you lose half the can to overspray at times....

[lmagna]

9 hours ago, Egilman said:

You hear no reports of serious issues with our torpedoes after that.....

October 25th 1944 The last torpedo fired by Dick O'Kane of the US submarine Tang.

 

A MK18 electric torpedo, the American copy of the German G7e torpedo that had been copied from German torpedos that had been recovered after running aground in 1942. It was the last torpedo onboard the Tang. It broached and curved to the left in a circular run. O'Kane fishtailed the sub under emergency power to clear the turning circle of the torpedo, but it struck Tang abreast the aft torpedo room approximately 20 seconds after it was fired. The first MK18 was fired under war conditions by Mush Morton in the Wahoo and Eugene Sands of the Spearfish in September of 1943. Sands reported that he "experienced enough torpedo problems to drive an ordinary man berserk": one sank, one broached and ran wild, three fishtailed at launch and hit the outer doors before disappearing, and seven missed astern

 

Either O'Kane was a very bad shot or the torpedo guidance system on the MK 18 was still having issues in 1944 just like the MK 14.

 

Suggested reading,  Clear the Bridge!: The War Patrols of the U.S.S. Tang by Richard O'Kane.

Edited March 9, 2021 by lmagna

[Egilman]

7 hours ago, lmagna said:

Suggested reading,  Clear the Bridge!: The War Patrols of the U.S.S. Tang by Richard O'Kane.

Thanks Lou for the suggestion, I always love reading the experiences of people who were there....

I've obtained a copy and will be perusing it's pages shortly....

 

In the meantime, I would suggest two items....

 

NUSC Technical Document 5436 15 September 1978

A Brief History of U.S. Navy Torpedo Development (pdf)

E. W Jolie Weapon Systems Department
Naval Underwater Systems Center
Newport Laboratory

 

Basically I'm posting it here for everyone I'm sure you know most of this info already....

 

and....

 

From "US Navy Bureau of Ordinance In WWII"

Chapter 6; Torpedoes...

 

This is an extensive report on the torpedoes used by the US Navy in WWII, their origins, their designs, their improvements, and their battle history.... (in minute detail all the way to the point of both King and Nimitz ordering the deactivation of the magnetic exploders on all the Mk 14 torpedo in use at that time)

 

One thing it notes, the US Mk 14 & Mk 18 Torpedoes were the most successful submarine naval torpedoes used during the war, (by an order of magnitude over anyone else's) they were the only torpedoes used in combat on our submarines during the war.....

Yes they had a very well earned bad reputation early in the war and it goes into the truth as to why this came about, the results and actions taken to overcome it, (It was a rep that never really went away) And how they never fully fixed it's reputation, by 1944 they had mostly eliminated the problems technically.....

 

By 1944, the reputation of them got so bad and the exaggeration of that rep by the crews and officers using them making it worse every day, casts every anecdotal report of their performance in question... Especially from late in the war especially after solutions were found and implemented, which gets very short shrift in the anecdotal re-telling.....

 

As far as the Mk 18 torpedo being a copy of the German G7e, the Mk 18 was a Mk 14 using a Newport/GE designed electric motor for propulsion on the same principle as the German design, it's main claim to fame is no wake.... (they first obtained a G7e from a captured U-boat in mid '42 according to the Bureau of Ordinance)

 

My information on the Italian Mk-18 torpedo and the Navy's desire for an example comes from studying the negotiations for the Italian surrender during WWII, it's was prominent in those negotiations they really wanted the guidance system for examination as it was claimed to be the most consistently accurate of the pre-war systems.... (interesting that it isn't even mentioned in the Ordinance report on US torpedo development) It was such a prominent feature of the surrender negotiations that General/President Eisenhower wrote about it in one of his memoirs...... (reading it in his memoirs is what prompted me to research the surrender)

 

As always brother I appreciate the suggestions for further reading, keep them coming my friend....

 

As far as the details I'll let you all read it for yourself...... so you all can develop your own opinions and not take mine as rote....

 

The Ordinance report does cover the bad rep in detail, it's valid beginnings and it's exaggerations and propagation amongst the crews and personnel as the war progressed even after they reduced most of it problems....

A need to read as it gives a needed factual perspective to counterbalance the perceived hate of faulty equipment..... (much like the Sherman tank hatred espoused by those that don't like facts)

 

Statistically, the Mk 14 and it's derivative Mk 18 were the most successful torpedoes of the war, in anyone's navy.....

 

[Egilman]

1 hour ago, Egilman said:

My information on the Italian Mk-18 torpedo and the Navy's desire for an example comes from studying the negotiations for the Italian surrender during WWII, it's was prominent in those negotiations they really wanted the guidance system for examination as it was claimed to be the most consistently accurate of the pre-war systems.... (interesting that it isn't even mentioned in the Ordinance report on US torpedo development) It was such a prominent feature of the surrender negotiations that General/President Eisenhower wrote about it in one of his memoirs...... (reading it in his memoirs is what prompted me to research the surrender)

I found another reference to the US Navy's interest in Italian torpedoes in WWII....

 

Regia Marina Italiana

Weapons; Torpedoes

 

This covers the torpedoes in use by the Italian Navy during WWII, at the bottom it mentions the US Navy's strong interest in them...

 

It's not definitive true, but it backs up what Ike wrote in his Memoirs.... 

 

Still looking for more...

 

EG

[lmagna]

2 hours ago, Egilman said:

Statistically, the Mk 14 and it's derivative Mk 18 were the most successful torpedoes of the war, in anyone's navy.....

With plenty of targets and almost 15,000 torpedoes fired from submarines, sinking slightly more than 1300 ships I still have some questions about  that claim, but have no interest in crunching numbers for the next few months. It is true that in the Pacific the US submarine effort cost the Japanese well over 50% of their losses and combined with their losses from aircraft and other torpedo launching platforms caused the virtual destruction of Japans nautical abilities by 1945. By that time there were virtually no Japanese ships left large enough to warrant the use of a torpedo.

 

This is really Mikes build log not a history debate and he has not really given permission to treat it as such. So I am done. Thanks for the reading. I will certainly look it over.  

[Egilman]

10 minutes ago, lmagna said:

This is really Mikes build log not a history debate and he has not really given permission to treat it as such. So I am done. Thanks for the reading. I will certainly look it over.  

Your absolutely right, and I apologize to Mike for straying off the topic....

This isn't the place for a discussion over torpedo effectiveness and reputation.....

 

Sorry...

[Landlubber Mike]

No worries at all guys, no apologies necessary!  Frankly, I find all this fascinating and it makes me more into my builds when I'm learning history, mechanics, etc. alongside the build.  For me, it's less the final destination and more the journey that makes modeling fun for me.  I could probably put models together in half the time if I just opened the box and went straight to work.  Instead, I like all the learning about the subject that goes along with it.

 

So, again, no need to apologize!  Feel free to discuss these types of topics any time they come up!  Since I don't have the knowledge that you guys do, I'm more than happy to extend the build log real estate for these kinds of discussions  

[Egilman]

4 hours ago, Landlubber Mike said:

No worries at all guys, no apologies necessary!  Frankly, I find all this fascinating and it makes me more into my builds when I'm learning history, mechanics, etc. alongside the build.  For me, it's less the final destination and more the journey that makes modeling fun for me.  I could probably put models together in half the time if I just opened the box and went straight to work.  Instead, I like all the learning about the subject that goes along with it.

 

So, again, no need to apologize!  Feel free to discuss these types of topics any time they come up!  Since I don't have the knowledge that you guys do, I'm more than happy to extend the build log real estate for these kinds of discussions  

Well,

 

Thanks Mike, WE are kinda self regulating in this manner, build logs should be about the subject build and it's details and issues....

The early war disaster that was the Mk-14 torpedo was has nothing to do with Japanese destroyers....

 

Sometimes I need to be reminded of such, I can drop into discussions over disparate subjects way too easily sometimes....

Unfortunately there is no area here to discuss such things and it isn't appropriate anyway for a forum devoted to ship modeling....

At times I need reminding of this....

 

EG

[popeye the sailor]

an interesting feature of most waterline models....the bottom is colored differently {usually in an anti-foil color such as red}.  looks like a really well molded kit......I also agree about the chain detail.  it looks detailed and pronounce enough to bring out with paint.  I too have had my ups and downs with removal of molded detail.

[Landlubber Mike]

@lmagna Lou, don't worry at all man.  I'd rather talk about this kind of stuff on my log (more like listen) than discuss the evening I had last night giving myself a crash course on how to build PE ladders with the steps that can fold out 🤬

[Kevin]

good evening Mike, just catching up on what everyone is doing, thats a nice looking build, lol to small for my eyes though, looking forward to the next update

[lmagna]

18 hours ago, Egilman said:

I can drop into discussions over disparate subjects way too easily sometimes....

Unfortunately there is no area here to discuss such things

I am also guilty. In this case of being diverted from a simple "What if" comment into a full diatribe on the abilities of US torpedoes in WWII. But it is not true that these subjects cannot be properly discussed here on MSW. I would think these discussions at some point could be taken over to  Nautical Discussion' or Shore Leave. They could also possibly fit into Book, Monograph and Magazine reviews and Downloads. Questions and Discussions for Books and Pubs or even Nautical/Naval History when they grow out of a pertinent discussion that relates to the events or design surrounding the model being built.

[Landlubber Mike]

Or just drop those discussions on this build log?  Give people something to talk about since I don’t update it too often? 🤔

[lmagna]

4 hours ago, Landlubber Mike said:

Give people something to talk about since I don’t update it too often?

Oh you can get plenty of that as well Mike. Just wait until someone gets a little hungry and they get into an exotic food discussion! Hang on to your hat! 

[Kevin]

1 hour ago, lmagna said:

Oh you can get plenty of that as well Mike. Just wait until someone gets a little hungry and they get into an exotic food discussion! Hang on to your hat! 

does that include banana and peanut butter sandwiches

Edited March 11, 2021 by Kevin

[popeye the sailor]

....or bologna and whipped cream ..........nyuck....nyuck.....nyuck

[Landlubber Mike]

I think I can do peanut butter and banana, but bologna and whipped cream sounds pretty nasty 🤢

 

I've been making some progress on the Shimakaze the last few nights.  I'm adding what I can to the hull that won't get broken off (or has less of a chance of getting broken off) so I can paint everything in one shot before adding the linoleum deck sections.  I retried using Gator's Grip glue, and really like it.  I had tried it with my earlier 1/700 build but had a hard time getting it to work without being too messy, but it was probably user error.  So, depending on what I'm gluing and where, I will use plastic cement (Testor's squeeze tube), the Mr. Hobby and Tamiya jars of liquid cement with the brush in the handle, medium CA, two-part epoxy, and now Gator's Grip.  It was a little overwhelming seeing all those adhesive options when starting out in plastic, but I think I've now figured out how each can play a role in the modeling process.

 

In the meantime, I've got quite a bit of the bridge finished.  Lots of pretty brass to dress it up.  The kit isn't too bad, but the Infini set really dresses it up.  For example, the windows in the kit are decals applied over a plastic solid piece.  I like the Infini approach of using PE instead.  The Hasegawa PE upgrade set has a similar PE set of windows, but I liked how the Infini ones looked a little more.  It doesn't look like much, but this was hours of work!  Definitely helped to have the experience working in 1/700 scale.

 

I think I might pause here and paint the interior of the window section before adding the roof.  So far I'm pretty happy how this is coming out.  The Infini set is very precise.  Their ladders where steps fold out are a bit touchy though (two of them disintegrated when I tried to fold the side handle rails), and I had to use the Hasegawa upgrade set for a pair.  I just need to figure out a better approach to folding them I think.  I was regretting getting the Hasegawa upgrade set as it was essentially duplicated (and bettered) by the Infini set, but now I'm glad as I have a spare to fall back on if I screw things up -- which is very likely!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for looking in!

[Landlubber Mike]

I finished the bridge and deck that comes off the front.  Lots of great little details in the Infini set for sure.  Even the underside of the deck, which one won't be able to see, had close to a dozen lattice support pieces.  The Infini set has been fantastic.  Aside from the issue I had with the ladders, the PE is firm, cut clean off the frets (the tabs connecting the parts to the fret have an indentation that allows the knife to get in and make clean cuts), and have great details.  The pictures in the instructions are well done too so you have a good sense of what you need to do.  Highly recommend the set if you are going to build this kit.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for looking in!

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Landlubber Mike

[lmagna]

You must be rich to still have 10 cents left after having bought all that PE Mike! I would be hard pressed to find 1 cent around here lately, (dental insurance, car insurance, house insurance, and the biggest, hospital bills! All at once) 

 

This little guy is sure getting detailed out though. Nice work! 

[Landlubber Mike]

Thanks Lou!  This one wasn't too bad in terms of cost of aftermarket.  Some others though...ouch!

[popeye the sailor]

looks awesome Mike!  

[Ho203]

Hi Mike,

 

I’m currently building a 1/350 Tamiya Fletcher with an Infini detail kit. Certainly not a weekend project! I’m thinking I’ll have 100+ hours putting on all those parts. But that’s not the reason I’m jumping in here. I wanted to mention my thoughts about primers. I would throw that water based stuff in the trash, and get some Mr Surfacer 1000 (or even 1500) and thin it with Mr Color Leveling thinner. For priming small scale models with fine PE details, I use 66% thinner to 33% paint and build up very thin layers. The layers need to be thin, and wet, so you have to be close, with low pressure (I use 12 pis with a 0.35mm nozzle for this mix). This stuff practically becomes part of the model. It is very durable, and sand-able. You might want to practice on a paint mule once or twice if your used to water based products. Also, the stuff is strong, so a mask and air extraction are a must. 
 

I also use mr metal primer from time to time, but also like VMS Metal Prep. The best thing you can do to improve paint and glue adhesion on your PE is take a nice, new, clean sanding sponge (I have a 400 grit Infini Models Sponge set aside that I use only for this) and very gently rough the surfaces of both sides of the PE while it’s all still in the sprue. The brass is very soft, so it doesn’t take much.  I don’t bother with metal primer on the small parts that get glued right on the plastic. With the roughed surface, and Mr Surfacer, you’re good to go. I leave all the railings in the sprue, and after the model is fully painted,  attach the railings. Railings get rattle can fine coat of Mr Metal Primer and painted with the appropriate Mr Color paint and 50% Mr Leveling Thinner, while still in sprue. I do this because with all the handling while getting bent and glued, you can lose bits of paint here and there. Prepping as above, this is a minor issue. After the railings go on, a light coat of Mr Color flat coat hides the shiny glue spots that might be visible.

 

Mr Color also has a full array of IJN colors. I know I sound like a Gunze commercial, but man, once you try them, you’ll never go back to water based paints. Tamiya paints are great too, if thinned with that Mr Color Leveling Thinner, but they have a poor selection of colors.

 

good luck! Can’t wait to see your progress as I have a Shimakaze on deck.