2011 MMSI Online Gallery

Roger that, Aaron... I'm ok with "Artistic License", believe or not... Up to a point... In the case of this one, it's probably one of the more dramatic ones I've ever seen, and the workmanship is above and beyond... 

However, since Shep himself, in How to Build Dioramas, (2nd Ed) on page 14 in Chapter 1, "Ideas and Planning" points out this type of scenario (albeit a tank in an urban setting), of the soldiers all going off in different directions, as an example of  "a good idea", but remarks that it can be improved upon...

He writes, "Pointing the (tank) gun at the viewer dramatically indicates the the direction of the enemy, and the infantrymen are all shooting and moving in the same general direction."  But since I can't scan and post the sidebar sketch he included, it's rather hard to picture what I'm talking about... 

I'd have a really tough time judging this one, were I so engaged... The diorama itself is really good, with immediate drama to grab the viewer and hold his attention, a powerful story-line, and the title is perfect, and needs no explaining,  but the layout is pulling a few points off it...  

You know, upon further reflection, it's quite possible that it's the right idea, just the wrong period in military history... Were it a Napoleanic Wars-era cannon section, it'd be quite believable...    In the days of muzzle-loading muskets w/ bayonets and single-shot pistols as primary defensive weapons for the Artillerymen, then this layout would be "9.5"... 

Even though the enemy is unseen, the ranges at which they'd be fightng are MUCH closer initially, and if we pictiure THIS era, I can "feel" that the enemy would be upon the gunners in about three more seconds and it'd be all hand-to-hand...

Yupper, this one's a toughie and I understand why y'all liked it...  I think the problem I have with it lies more in my background as an artilleryman and knowing what would actually go on the in the defense of a gun-section against an Infantry attack... That said, I think that the result of being able to see something from any viewing angle was as much a happy accident as planned...  

 Attacking an enemy with as much organic firepower as a field artillery/AT gun battery by dismounted Infantry usually suicidal...  Just getting inside the battery's perimeter is a daunting task and one the would probably be quite costly for the attacker, regardless of outcome... It's better to attack artillery with artillery (or airstrikes), lol... There's lots of machine guns, lots of rifles, and lots and lots HE, in the form of projos and  mines to deal with before one can get to grenade-range...

Sluggin' it out with a gun battery, especially once it gets its reaction-force rolling, isn't a good way to make a living...

At any rate, lest I sound too anl about it, I think  it's a great diorama, with just a couple things keeping it from being an outstanding one... 

Hans von Hammer

Goona have to disagree with you about the diorama, "To the Last Shell"... You wrote in "Why we like it":

 

Why we like it: This compact scene can be viewed from any angle and convey a sense of urgency and impending doom. All of the figures are focused outward, drawing the viewer to imply the enemy without having to show them. This is a perfect example of storytelling and diorama design.

 

In fact, it bugs me simply because the figures are facing outward in all directions... While the "enemy" may be all arounf them, they would be firing on each other as well as the German gun crew...  Works for Hollywood, but not in combat...

While there arre a number of scenarios that would allow that kind of story,  being told from the viewpoint of an 88mm gun crew isn't it... The gun crew would have dug-in defensive postions for the MGs, and be fighting from them, with riflemen defending the machineguns, not standing up all around the gun and firing on enemy troops that're within obvious hand grenade range (which is generally about 20-25 meters, although it's conceiveable that it could be a little farther, as it always seems easier to throw a live grenade farther than a practice one, lol...

)...  The crew wouldn't be defending the gun, they'd have destoyed it (to prevent it's capture and utilization) and/or skeedaddled long before the enemy got that close, unless they were caught completely "asleep at the lanyard"...  If the gun was out of action, either by damage or out of ammo, there's no reason for the crew to even still be there, much less defending it to the last man...

It's OK story-telling, and certainly dramatic, but IMHO, it's not perfect story-telling and it's layout is flawed from several historical, doctrinal, and tactical standpoints...    I'd have to give it a "5" out of 10 for that...

The BTR diorama, is much more believable, since the "enemy" is obviously "right over there", with the crew's attention all focused in the same direction...  That's nuch better than the "enemy all around us" thing going on at the 88...  In the BTR's case, I concurr completley with y'all, Tim...

Hans,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with all of the valid military reasoning you offer about why this would never happen. I'd offer this as an example of what Shep Paine calls "artistic license." What I particularly liked about his is that the dio has no particular front — you can look at it form any angle and it seems like you are seeing the scene in a new way.

Cheers, Aaron

Goona have to disagree with you about the diorama, "To the Last Shell"... You wrote in "Why we like it":

Why we like it: This compact scene can be viewed from any angle and convey a sense of urgency and impending doom. All of the figures are focused outward, drawing the viewer to imply the enemy without having to show them. This is a perfect example of storytelling and diorama design.

In fact, it bugs me simply because the figures are facing outward in all directions... While the "enemy" may be all arounf them, they would be firing on each other as well as the German gun crew...  Works for Hollywood, but not in combat...

While there arre a number of scenarios that would allow that kind of story,  being told from the viewpoint of an 88mm gun crew isn't it... The gun crew would have dug-in defensive postions for the MGs, and be fighting from them, with riflemen defending the machineguns, not standing up all around the gun and firing on enemy troops that're within obvious hand grenade range (which is generally about 20-25 meters, although it's conceiveable that it could be a little farther, as it always seems easier to throw a live grenade farther than a practice one, lol...

)...  The crew wouldn't be defending the gun, they'd have destoyed it (to prevent it's capture and utilization) and/or skeedaddled long before the enemy got that close, unless they were caught completely "asleep at the lanyard"...  If the gun was out of action, either by damage or out of ammo, there's no reason for the crew to even still be there, much less defending it to the last man...

It's OK story-telling, and certainly dramatic, but IMHO, it's not perfect story-telling and it's layout is flawed from several historical, doctrinal, and tactical standpoints...    I'd have to give it a "5" out of 10 for that...

The BTR diorama, is much more believable, since the "enemy" is obviously "right over there", with the crew's attention all focused in the same direction...  That's nuch better than the "enemy all around us" thing going on at the 88...  In the BTR's case, I concurr completley with y'all, Tim...

Subscribers only.