Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
IJN Yuzuki http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2841 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Weisman [ March 21st, 2012, 8:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | IJN Yuzuki |
The last of Mutsuki-class destroyers. |
Author: | Radome [ March 21st, 2012, 8:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: IJN Yuzuki |
Nice, love the details! |
Author: | Colosseum [ March 21st, 2012, 8:40 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: IJN Yuzuki |
Japan, Mutsuki Class IJN Yuzuki, (DATE SHOWN) (weisman) |
Author: | Bombhead [ March 21st, 2012, 9:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: IJN Yuzuki |
I rather like that.A very nice well drawn ship Weisman. |
Author: | emperor_andreas [ March 21st, 2012, 10:16 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: IJN Yuzuki |
Depending on how one views it, she was the twelfth laid down, the eleventh launched (Mochizuki was the last), and the eleventh commissioned (again, Mochizuki was the last). In any event, very nice job! The latest this drawing can depict her would be 25 May 1942 (all division numbers and side names were more than likely painted out at some point during the war, although newly-commissioned vessels initially sported their names on their sides, as evidenced by pics of Kazagumo and Akizuki), as she was transferred to DesDiv 29 on that date. -Matt |
Author: | Colosseum [ March 21st, 2012, 11:03 pm ] | |
Post subject: | Re: IJN Yuzuki | |
Depending on how one views it, she was the twelfth laid down, the eleventh launched (Mochizuki was the last), and the eleventh commissioned (again, Mochizuki was the last). In any event, very nice job!
I'm glad we finally have some IJN gurus on this board. The latest this drawing can depict her would be 25 May 1942 (all division numbers and side names were more than likely painted out at some point during the war, although newly-commissioned vessels initially sported their names on their sides, as evidenced by pics of Kazagumo and Akizuki), as she was transferred to DesDiv 29 on that date. -Matt I used to be a fan of IJN ships and drew some of the originals on the archive (my Tone class CA is still fairly decent in m eyes) but I've lost interest in favor of the USN '41-45! |
Author: | emperor_andreas [ March 22nd, 2012, 12:23 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: IJN Yuzuki |
'IJN guru'...that was probably one of the nicest compliments I've ever received! Even better it came from a fellow Houstonian! Thanks! I've studied the IJN for about 15 years now, and have compiled a huge list of COs and assignments. Anyone needs info on the ships, PM me and I'll see what I have. Also: Narrowed the date of the drawing down even further...this is after 1 August 1928, when she received the name Yuzuki; before that she would've simply had a number '34' on her side (as per her name DD-34). So the drawing dates from between 1 August 1928 - 25 May 1942. -Matt |
Author: | Gollevainen [ March 22nd, 2012, 9:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: IJN Yuzuki |
Nice drawing, definetly, thougth there are few areas where you seem to forget the golden rule of three pixels. Everything (inlcuding walking out bridges, mast parts ect...) needs to be covered with black pixels. In practice this means that some sections needs to be exagerated up to 3 pixel (two black ones and the grey one between them) |
Author: | Weisman [ March 22nd, 2012, 5:05 pm ] | |
Post subject: | Re: IJN Yuzuki | |
Japan, Mutsuki Class
Will fix it.
IJN Yuzuki, (DATE SHOWN) (weisman) |
Author: | Weisman [ March 22nd, 2012, 5:29 pm ] | |
Post subject: | Re: IJN Yuzuki | |
'IJN guru'...that was probably one of the nicest compliments I've ever received! Even better it came from a fellow Houstonian! Thanks!
I've studied the IJN for about 15 years now, and have compiled a huge list of COs and assignments. Anyone needs info on the ships, PM me and I'll see what I have. Also: Narrowed the date of the drawing down even further...this is after 1 August 1928, when she received the name Yuzuki; before that she would've simply had a number '34' on her side (as per her name DD-34). So the drawing dates from between 1 August 1928 - 25 May 1942. -Matt Yes Matt, you are right. My personal opinion in this case is 1928-1929. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |