Thoughts on Aircraft vs Armor

I have always built both, and i feel that i treat both the same. I think the same can be said for most who do the same as me. I never feel the need to defend my use of PE, and kits are getting pricey in both genres.

I can't say i have noticed what you seem to have, but then i haven't really taken much notice. But i will from now on.

Personally, i think armour come in for more scrutiny when it comes to accuracy.

Doogs,  It's funny, just last night I was reading through some threads and came to the realization that the folks here in the armor category do seem to have a closer knit fraternity than the aircraft people.  I'm not going to try to justify that comment, it's merely an observation.  The aftermarket issue is also an interesting observation.  Do you think that armor aftermarket is more desired because that so many parts and bits display so prominently on the finished model?  I love to cut, fold, bend, and place those itty bitty parts, but I'm doing aircraft these days.  Most of my photo etch work ends up closed up within the cockpit and only a fond memory of the effort involved.

The aftermarket/scratchbuild divide has escalated with the advent of the Monogram Mafia.  Scratchbuilding  seems to have become a banner of the "True Grit" modeler.  And the use of aftermarket is for the lazy, shortcut seekers.  I enjoy riding right down the middle of that debate.  I like to whip up parts and conduits and all kinds of do-dads to busy up cockpits, wheel wells, landing gears, and engines.  But there are places that aftermarket offers a better look than I can produce from the spare parts bin.  The comments that the cost of aftermarket is prohibitive and the application is a shortcut only can come from someone not familiar with the product.  I keep an eye on ebay and Squadron.  Good photo etch, resin control surfaces and engines can be had at great prices.  Just be patient.    Anyone who has assembled one of those little Eduard throttle quadrants will tell you that there's nothing easy about it.  I would like to see a more open minded approach from everyone.  We are all working to produce our best work.  That work will be at all different levels.  There is great scratch work and great aftermarket work.  Let's recognize both as great work as well as hard work. "It's all rock and roll to me."  Rick.

You see a lot more barrels and tracks because of limitations in older kits. One piece vinyl tracks used to only have detail on the outer side. The inner side was often smooth or just had gear teeth to assist in motorization.

Likewise with gun tubes, mold limitations required the gun to be molded in half. It was common for the big, long seam to be a hassle and often the barrel was oblong and not round.

While I prefer (1:48) aircraft, as I age, I find it easier to deal with a larger scale and find that (1:35) armor is far easier on the shelf space. Price? Comparing this to motorcycles, modeling is chump change.

As far as photoetch and resin go, I like some additions and love to see what others do with it. Anyone who has a problem with it has never seen a WIP from 'chukw'.

To the "assembler v modeler" drivel, anyone talking that mess can take a leap. This hobby is niche enough without some wannabe "elitist" denigrating anyone willing to participate.

Armor is labeled "The Dark Side" because of a quote from Desert Storm, it carries no derogatory meaning.

Zimmerit is kind of a hot topic. Purists or scratchbuilders say It can be done by hand, but many like myself prefer the AM resin, because it looks good and is accurate. Many of us don't want to boo boo our $50 kits. I agree it's kind of spendy, but it's one of the few AM pieces I'll pay for. In older kits, have to have PE grills.

I agree with you Doogs, AM products are generally accepted among the armor bretheren. I think us modelers should just appreciate the other for doing what he needs to finish his build. I mean who's to judge anyways?

I hope I don't disturb the discussion, but I figured this was a good spot to throw this newbie question in without creating an entirely new thread...

What is PE?  I've deciphered AM to be aftermarket, but I can figure out PE...

JailCop

I hope I don't disturb the discussion, but I figured this was a good spot to throw this newbie question in without creating an entirely new thread...

 

What is PE?  I've deciphered AM to be aftermarket, but I can figure out PE...

PE is Photo Etch metal.

I build both aircraft and armor, since I consider myself a "Military Modeler", rather than an "Aircraft" or "Armor" modeler..

I use both PE and resin parts, I just don't buy them very often...

I don't buy AM track or PE parts for armor, it's more fun for me to cast resin parts that are in one kit, and use them on another, ie, that engine on the P-61.. I've cast about a dozen copies of it for use on other aircraft that used the P&W R-2800 radial.. I cast copies of Mongram figures, since they're just flat the the best 1/48 figures around, IMNSHO...

As far as my "old-school" appraoch t' modeling, it's the same no matter the genre...

As a "Gizmologist", I don't strive for "duplication", but rather 'suggestion"... When you look into the stuff I build, be it a turret or cockpit, it's not nut for nut, bolt for bolt, it's just prety "busy" in there..  Gizmology, howerver, is not a license to produce unlikley parts and /or stowage out of thin air, it has to be close to the original part, just not an exact copy...  There's a radio in that Stuke I built, but even so, you can;t read the freq numbers, and you can see the breech on my M109A3, but youcan't see the firing-lock or the inside thread for the obturating spindle..  And if you can't see it, I don't bother building it...

However, I digress...

The tread-heads are a different lot, but it's just that they talk in a strange language to aircraft modelers, stuff about sponsons, glacis plates, bore evacuators, muzzle-brakes, cupolas, the coax, matching units, and  final drives is all...  They don't talk in plain language of aircraft models like, fuselage, empenage, cowl-flaps, Nordens, throttle-quadrants, dihedral,  or dive-brakes, prop-hubs and spinners...

The aftermarket/scratchbuild divide has escalated with the advent of the Monogram Mafia.

The Monogram Mafia was formed as an answer to the "Pooh-poohing" of Monogram/Revell kits that had been going on around the aircraft forum.. It was simply an attempt to show that a 12.00-18.00  kit could be built into a model that could outshine the "High-end" kits in detail and finish... Nothing more...

I don't think a "divide" has formed either... It's just that some folks are learning that one doesn't really need to go "all AM" on them, that some strip, sheet, and rod styrene, along with a good imagination, will go a long way in super-detailing, without having to buy things that cost more than the kits..

Also, there are several "Mafiosos" that used AM PE and resin parts.. There wasn't a rule against it...  The only real "rule" was that it had to be a pre-merger Monogram kit, or Revell kit that was originally a pre-merger Monogram kit...

Interesting to see what others think on this.

The point about deficiencies in older armor kits is a good one. I also think, especially with tracks, there seems to be a lot of "do what works for you". I hate indy links going back to my childhood, so I will spring for friuls often as not. 

I also wonder if part of it's that, with armor, there seems to be an expectation that people are going to get right up close to eyeball things. With aircraft - especially in reviews - you see a lot of "from more than a foot away, you'd be hard pressed to tell X from (more detailed) Y". While that's undoubtedly true across all modeling, I've been turning it over for a few hours now and I can't think of a single time I've ever read that sentiment in an armor or armor accessory review.

I guess I have just noticed (and not just here) that a lot of the 1) kits are so expensive and 2) "you almost have to buy aftermarket stuff to hold your own" and the inevitable "no you don't and people who buy aftermarket are too lazy to..." refrain comes from the aircraft side. Heck - you see it all over the place in online reviews.

Another interesting manifestation of this was at the Austin show this last weekend. I think the single most competitive category was probably 1/32 props, followed very closely by box-stock aircraft.

The number of entries in box-stock on the armor side? One.

I was primarily an aircraft modeler until about a month ago when I decided the urge to try out armor was just too much and I bought a couple items from Tamiya's 1/48 scale line.  After assembling my Sherman in one night I was left with only one question.....why didn't I do this sooner?

Although 1/35 is the popular scale, I've been finding the 1/48 kits fit nicely into my budget and are A LOT of fun to build.  Armor has a lot less fussing than aircraft do as you're always messing with seams and wing alignments and such on planes.

I'm still primarily an aircraft modeler because of my love for historic aviation, but I will be building a decent amount of armor from now on too.

DoogsATX - first up, I really like your blog - friendly, informative and entertaining - thanx!

On topic, the AC forum does seem to attract an incredible number of tight-shorts posts. Too bad. There's so much info and interest out there that it could be a really positive AC model community, but as it is it get fractioned into scratch vs. PE, old kit  vs. new kit, blah blah. I find that the number of posts by sincere and skilled modelers are seriously diminished by the few, the proud, the hardheaded

Build what you like, the way you want to build it!

Mike

Not to take your thread into a AM tracks vs OOB tracks, Doogs, but I prefer the rubber-band tracks in the kits anyway.. If they're detailed on both sides, they're quite useable for me..

I know how to get them to sag, and how to thread them together rather than depend on the glue joint or heat-pressed little tabs..

I hate link & length tracks, simply because they don't work on anything but a flat surface, so any dio I build with those will have to have the tankon the hardball rather than prowling cross-country over un-even terrain.. They don't "spring" with the suspension worth a darn...

Hate indy links too, and for the same reason I hate Link & length tracks.. Oh, they CAN be formed to the terrain, but it's just too much work for this Irishman...  And with the amount of mud and gunk that I put them in on the dios, painting them isn't even an issue, as they'll likely be covered in mud... 

Hans, I agree with you re: rubber bands, ESPECIALLY on AFVs where sag isn't an issue - live-type tracks on allied armor, or the "skip-the-return-rollers" style of the Tigers and KTs. Kind of baffled why Dragon when DS tracks for the Tiger I but still does indies for the KT. 

Also, depending on the track and the vehicle, I find PE fret frames make really good braces. Provided you can hide them somewhere.

But if a kit just gives me indies or link and lengths, I'll replace them every time (well, maybe not...I've heard that the indy T66 tracks with the Tasca Easy Eight are marvels and fully workable once assembled). The thing I love about friuls is precisely that they are workable and in a dio settling would conform very well to the ground. 

Historicaly Armor fares pretty badly against aircraft... except on 1973 when the Egyptian and Syrian Armies started their offensives under a good integrated Air Defense System and the Israelis had inadequate SEAD capabilities. At least for the first week or two...

Oh model building wise...

Pricing- there is not the same disparity between manufacturers in armor as is aircraft, therefore you see less of the price differentials. (no two new mold kits of the same subject with the domestic for under $20 and the imprt for almost $70- no home grown armor kits these days- all are imports) While the pricing is more uniform there are still companies that re issue older kits with a price hike and minimal or no changes to the original kit.

Aftermarket- much of what is done in AM for aircraft can be done with rudimentary scratch building skills, basic materials, and some improvisation. In armor not so easily, Tracks are way above simple to scratchbuild and all those tiny PE tool clamps and other fiddly bits that add life to AFVs are more challenging to create from scratch at the workbench

Builders- I dont know, at least on this site, it always seems to me at least until the past year or three that armor was, as Rodney Dangerfield would say, "Tough crowd, tough crowd".  Lots of military vets here will pull no punches in pointing out errors regarding AFVs- they are used to the "hot wash" after action review. The aircraft forum tended to be more Kum Bay Ya and Atta Boy. Go to an IPMS meeting and listen to the aircraft guys laugh at the "targets" builds.

I don't really accet that there is a major divide between the scratch builders and those who load kits with AM. If you take me and Hans, we are at the total opposite end of the scale. He will buy kits only under a certain price and would rather make his own detail. Where as i have no limit on what i spend on a kit, and will often spend twice as much on AM as i did on the kit. Yet i have never had any problem from Hans because of that, and i hope he hasn't had any issue with me. Just as Hans users Am on the odd occasion, i do a bit of scratch building on the odd occasion.

Adding Am isn't a cheat or the easy way out, try adding a 72nd PE set to an aircraft and tell me its easy. The impression i get is that for the most part we accept each others methods and appreciate the end result.

Or am i just not looking in the right threads and maybe missing all the arguments.

The thing I love about friuls is precisely that they are workable and in a dio settling would conform very well to the ground. 

Those the tracks that go together with connector links on the track pins?

i have never had any problem from Hans because of that, and i hope he hasn't had any issue with me.

Not a lick... Might yank yer chain a bit here & there a bit, but it's all in fun...

Do I consider the massive use of AM parts "cheating" or "Lazy"?  Depends...  I think that generally, it's a matter of preference, but I'll call it out if I think it's done to avoid certain aspects of super-detailng, vs. scratch-building... Other times, I get kinda bent when a nugget asks a question about detailing a kit, and right away there are fourteen posts about getting this or that PE and REsin set, without a single one of them ascertaining the person's skill level, which is usually pretty low, judging on the questions asked..

On the other hand, I consider total use of after market parts a perfectly ok solution to a to a problem, while at the same time, and this is where I get most passionate, is the dependence on them for everything, at the total loss of scratch-building skills, which is, IMHO a dying art... So many folks tell the nuggets to use This PE set or That Resin update set, when all that's needed is a little "Imagineering & gizmology" with some sheet-styrene and stretched sprue...

Fruil use wire to connect the links, the wire goes in the same way and place as the pics would go in.

Well, if they are live tracks, then they're probably ok, but I ain't one to incurr the cost either... But yeah, if I needed them, I'd probably go that route.. I need the tracks to operate in order to get the best look, on the diorama ground work, from operating tracks..

Lots of military vets here will pull no punches in pointing out errors regarding AFVs- they are used to the "hot wash" after action review.

Ditto.. Nobody really takes offense to a comment like "That track's more ate up than a football bat" if they've actually lived in, on, and around AFVs...   Whereas very few modelers here are World War Two fighter pilots, there's a LOT of former DATs here (Dumb A** Tankers) and that kind of " 'tude" isn't an insult... Not as long as there's information from the person doing the "insult" from his time living in them, and preferably accompanied with detail photos and labels for the parts being critiqued...

My personal experience is largely with M101s, M102s, and M109A3s, along with FAASVs and M548s, and wheels including Humvees, M151A2s, M35A2s, and CUCVs, both M1008 and M1009.. So have no compunction whatsoever about correcting a certain area of a guy's build and wi;; supply him with detail photos and those photos will have the areas in question highlighted and labeled..

Something as simple as the stowage of the donkey d ick for the M101A2 while the gun's in firing position, or pointing out that the red and white posts are NOT what the latest AFV Club M2A1 105mm howitzer reviewer called, "Ranging Rods"... *Gag* They're Aiming Posts... Don't make stuff up if you don't know.. Google the gun's TM and look in the BII (BAsic Issue Items) section...  Also, if the gun's in firing position, the gunner's sight is ALWAYS perpendiular to the ground... It's gotta be straight up & down regardless of the angle of the gun tube.  (And, while we're at it, that ain't a "Backwards Spotting Scope" on the left front of the guns position.. It's a Collimator...)

 But overall, the "skin-thickness" of both genre's builders are about the same, relative to their genre, that is, if you're trackin' me...

Bish

I have always built both, and i feel that i treat both the same. I think the same can be said for most who do the same as me. I never feel the need to defend my use of PE, and kits are getting pricey in both genres.

I can't say i have noticed what you seem to have, but then i haven't really taken much notice. But i will from now on.

Personally, i think armour come in for more scrutiny when it comes to accuracy.

My ...

I don't hang out in the Aircraft forum the way I do in the Armor one.  I only respond to the occasional interesting post.  I do have a good degree of respect for them though.  Those rotorheads   give us nice things to shoot at as they pass overhead...

I'm a recent convert to the AM religion.  I'm still not a HUGE fan of PE; but I am getting there.  My newest thing is AM barrels for my armor projects.  I'm not one of these rivet counters that has to have absolute, 100% accuracy.  Hell, I saw a guy at a contest one time measuring the inside of an M1 barrel to make sure it was "to scale".  To me that is totally rediculous.  I don't build for contests either.  I use PE and other AM replacements; but I don't fault those who don't and have the highest respect for those (Hans  ) who can scratch build.  It's a talent I wish I had!

What I do see the armor guys (myself included) getting bent out of shape (Look!  A PE joke!  Sometimes they just fall from the sky!  )  about is someone buying built kits from someone else and passing them off as their own.  I'm not naming names; but hang out in the Armor forum long enough and you'll see what I mean.

How the aircraft guys can make the cockpit on a P-51 look like you're sitting right there in it is beyond my ability to comprehend.  For that, I salute you (I wish we had a salute emoticon)! 

I do like the ease of using rubber band tracks, especially when the bulk of the track is going to be hidden by side skirts or the ground. However, to get the proper amount of "sag" I do think that indy links are the way to go. I just wish they weren't such a PITA to have to deal with. Fruils are still waaaaay outside my price range.

Do AM details give the modeler an edge in competition?  Not really, at least it's not supposed to!  It does take away a possible "point of failure" like in using a turned aluminum barrel vs. stock.  If you're able to make the seam between barrel halves disappear, "...you're a daisy if ya do!"    I choose to get my gigs elsewhere...like "wheel alignment" on my Stryker MGS. 

Hans - friuls are the white metal tracks. They connect together similar to indies, but you then insert a pin or length of metal wire to act as a hinge. Entirely workable, pretty durable (I had one link break on my Panzer III...), and they conform well to uneven ground. 

Here they are in test-fit mode on my KV-2.

Hans von Hammer

  Whereas very few modelers here are World War Two fighter pilots, there's a LOT of former DATs here (Dumb A** Tankers)

With a fair selection of even Dumber A** Grunts thrown in.

Slusher, i like historical accuracy, but measuering the barrel is going a bit beyond the call of duty.

As for people buying built kits, well i all think we know to whom you refer. But that isn't the problem, its the attitude.

We called them Grunts, Earth Pigs, Mud Monkeys, Crunchies. When they switched to Bradleys, we called them "GIBS" or Guys in Back Sleeping. TC, gunner and driver were up, but as soon as the track stopped and the ramp dropped, they stumbled out like a bunch of sleeping drunks at a traffic stop.

  I  agree with Doogs but will add my personal take on the subject.  If I had to post a picture of a build to be part of this forum I would rather post it in armour.  I can't really explain it because the knowledge and talent in that group is down right scary.  It just seems that feedback is critical and incouraging at the same time.  It's subtle, and I think I'm not explaining it very well.  That being said, the WIP threads are really fun to follow.  I"m afraid that if I ever model a tank I might not go back.  The "dark side" make it look so fun and interesting.

Rob Gronovius

We called them Grunts, Earth Pigs, Mud Monkeys, Crunchies. When they switched to Bradleys, we called them "GIBS" or Guys in Back Sleeping. TC, gunner and driver were up, but as soon as the track stopped and the ramp dropped, they stumbled out like a bunch of sleeping drunks at a traffic stop.

Don't forget our favorite "Gun Bunnies"...artillery-men...Mike (Redleg12) and Gino (HeavyArty).  It's not a party til they show up!    Remember my #1 Rule for Survival on the Battlefield:  "Incoming fire has the right of way!"

PNGbrat

  I  agree with Doogs but will add my personal take on the subject.  If I had to post a picture of a build to be part of this forum I would rather post it in armour.  I can't really explain it because the knowledge and talent in that group is down right scary.  It just seems that feedback is critical and incouraging at the same time.  It's subtle, and I think I'm not explaining it very well.  That being said, the WIP threads are really fun to follow.  I"m afraid that if I ever model a tank I might not go back.  The "dark side" make it look so fun and interesting.

 

What was it my Pappy always told me, "You don't know the POWER of the Dark Side!" 

Rob Gronovius

We called them Grunts, Earth Pigs, Mud Monkeys, Crunchies. When they switched to Bradleys, we called them "GIBS" or Guys in Back Sleeping. TC, gunner and driver were up, but as soon as the track stopped and the ramp dropped, they stumbled out like a bunch of sleeping drunks at a traffic stop.

That sounds familiar, it was the same in our Warriors. Though i must admit, every time we stopped, my drivers seat went back and i was away.

I dunno if a fireman should stick his head in this thread.. lol

but.. I use both for armor and aircraft.. depending on my latest budget calculations,, and, or, what I'm going for in the build.. if its armor, I will at least try to round up a AM barrel, just cause I like how they look.

. Aircraft,, again. depends on what I want to do

.. I do think I'm a pretty good gizmologist...,scratch builder,, and user of AM, PE, etc,,  Same for Armor,,,,,, budget,,, and time frame for build, and if I'm going to duplicate a particular piece,,,

as for the back n forth, I think 99% of the time,, its good natured ribbing,, just sometimes the world of typed communication,, the nuances get lost..