Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
dseehafer

Furutaka's model could use an update

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,763
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Greetings all,

 

  After the relative success of my first "X model could use an update" thread ( http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/110475-tirpitzs-model-could-use-an-update/ ) I have decided to continue the series, as promised, with the Furutaka.

 

Now then, before we begin it should be noted that the features we are going to be talking about have long been debated by historians and modelers. You see, there are not many photos of the Furutaka or her sister Kako after their 1939 refits. Because of this, certain features on the Furutaka have are debated because of the lack of quality photographs showing these specific features. Namely, these features deal almost exclusively with the fore and aft superstructures. 

 

Ask any rivet counter which is the best model for Furutaka and they will immediately point you towards Hasewega's models (either their 2007 waterline or 2015 full hull versions in  1/700 sclae). Why? Because they are based off of the official Kure navy yard drawings from 1939 (where Furutaka got her reconstruction) from the Tokyo maritime museum's archives. Wargaming's Furutaka does not subscribe to the same drawings, instead it subscribes to the drawings from sources such as profile morski and the book "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War" which are not based off of the official Kure drawings.

 

Here is the blueprint given by Hasewega which is based off of the official drawings.

 

HCvKMKE.jpg

 

And here is an example of a blueprint theory that WG's model subscribes to.

 

vOJeq36.jpg

 

You can see that the upper red circle has circled her aft superstructure circled. Notice that it is much thinner than the same superstructure on Hasewega's drawing. Ignore the red circle on the bottom side view image.

 

Here is Furutaka's aft superstructure in game, you'll notice that it's long and skinny like the second set of drawings.

 

T36ZwUM.jpg

 

Now let's look at Furutaka's bridge. Below is an image of our Furutaka's bridge.

 

zjhl1Ip.jpg

 

Notice that the forward base of the superstructure is square and also notice the massive overhanging square platform that the two twin 13.2mm AA guns are mounted on. Notice also that this platform has a solid wall/fence going around it's edge. You can easily see the large square 13.2mm platform on the bottom pair of blueprints. Look now at the search light just behind the admiral's bridge.. right below it you can see a rangefinder mounted on a small platform with a conical base.

 

Below is Hasewega's bridge...

 

1XkAFti.jpg

 

The angle makes it hard to tell but the forward base of the superstructure is sloped inwards on either side ending in a square face. WG's model does not slant inwards at all. Basically, Hasewega's looks like the bottom half of a stop sign (octagon) where WG's is just a square. Notice also that there is no large overhanging platform for the 13.2mm guns, instead they are just mounted on the roof of the superstructure itself and while there is a fence that goes around the 13.2mm deck it is not solid. We can also see that the platform that the search light behind the Admiral's bridge is not as conical but is much more rounded and is also about twice as large.

 

Here is a picture the forward superstructure on Hasewega's model. Compare it to the drawing above.

 

2HWLDp3.jpg

 

Now compare the two above images of the model and drawings to this historical photo...

 

FqrN69B.jpg?1

 

This picture alone invalidate's WG's model of the ship as we can clearly see that there is no large overhanging platform under the 13.2mm guns and that the fence is not solid. Aslo look at the large rounded platform for that searchlight that we have been talking about. Unfortunately a lack of aerial photographic evidence means that we have no way of knowing forsure if the rear superstructure is modeled correctly on WG's model or not. But if you trust Hasewega's drawings, which so far have proved accurate, then we can safely assume that it is not modeled correctly in game.

 

 qKEwFQ4.jpg

GvYhg1i.jpg

Yq4T8UQ.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways those are all the things that could be added and/or fixed that I'm aware of. What do you guys think?

Edited by dseehafer
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,163 posts
7,817 battles

+1 for more accurate historical modeling.

 

I always thought that the C hull bridge on Furutaka looked a bit off compared to Aoba. The progression just didn't seem to be there like in most of the other ships when you look at them in chronological order.(Because Aoba's bridge doesn't have the hanging platform like dseehafer is pointing out on C hull Furutaka)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,886
[HINON]
Privateers, Privateers
6,800 posts
4,996 battles

Nice! I can definitely see the mistakes in the model. Hopefully they will be corrected soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,763
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Next up will probably be Nurnberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,763
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

 

What other ships have you noticed that they modeled pretty incorrectly?

 

Missouri is the only other one that I know is wrong that's not a frankenship, but I'm sure I'll find more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×