Modeling the Iraq conflict

I would like to do an F/A-18 Hornet and an A-10 in the colors and markings of "Iraqi Freedom". Can't seem to find to much info for the project at the moment.
I'm sure that will change later in the future.

The only diorama I ever saw at a model show that caused a lot of strife was of the WTC attacks. Less than 6 months after the attack, a modeler brought a diorama of the two towers and a plane going into the tower. During and after the event, I read and heard a lot of flames directed towards the modeler and the diorama in various model related forums. Modeling current events doesn't generally bother me, but I have talked with other modelers and some of them will wait until after the conflict is over to build dioramas or kits from this war. Personally speaking, I've been collecting reference photos online and planning future projects. However it is up to you as to how you feel about modeling current events.

Personally I think that if you are just modelling the vehicles or maybe a small vignette I don't think you'd recieve any negative responses. The only ones that I have seen getting flamed are ones that portray injured figures in the scene. But if you are modelling say an M1A1 Abrams in Iraq, model away.

The war in Iraq, just like the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or any other conflict that you can name, is of historical value no matter the timeframe.

Any portrayal made (models, art, etc) based on the events that have transpired and those which have yet to transpire can be interpreted on many different levels. Those who are naturally inclined to protest will do so. Those who are not, will not.

I see no reason whatsoever for curbing your creativity simply because it may offend someone. Someone will ALWAYS take offense to ANYTHING.

We had a debate here in our club about whether models with nose art of the pin-up variety are "appropriate" for such displays as our mall show, what with young eyes roving around and all.

One woman took offense to seeing a model of "Airacutie", a P-39 with a large nude painted on either side of the forward fuselage. She has a right to be offended, but she also has the right to be obstinate and narrow-minded.

Many people in today's society cannot accept the fact that theirs is not the only point of view. Also, some cannot accept that their point of view is not the only acceptable or reasonable one.

My point is this, if you want to build a scene of some Marines fighting their way out of an ambush in Iraq, just do it. Don't worry about what someone else may think.

Similarly, I'll continue to build WWII aircraft with scantily-clad (if at all!) gals painted on the nose. I'll also continue to display them wherever I would display any of my other models. If someone doesn't like it, TOO BAD.

Fade to Black...

Well said Blackwolf!

Jerry

I'm with Blackwolf on this one, build what you want and enjoy.

It`s your time and money. Do what pleases you.

Model what you like when you like to.

Personally, I'm one of those that waits until the conflict is over before trying to model anything from it, thats a sure way to make certain your research information about it is accurate and won't change by the next news broadcast.

I'd say be a bit wary of any kit that you see hastily released with the specific combat markings included, they may not be accurrate and the kit is likely a convenient reissue to turn a buck for the manufacturer. The same thing happened during the first gulf war. Monogram realeased reissues of their 1/72 Panavia Tornado, F-15E Strike Eagle and EF-111 Raven with "Desert Storm" markings included. Neither their old Tornado or F-15E should have seen the light of day again after their initial releases in the mid 1980s. The EF-111 was still alright for the "Desert Storm" era, but there were better kits of it at the time.

If you're going to model this stuff, wait for the aftermarket decals to come around, then but a good kit of whatever it is you're wanting to represent.

Everything is contentious to somebody out there, and somebody will always be willing, rightly or wrongly, to take you to task for doing something, representing something or taking any sort of stand on anything. You can't go through life tiptoeing on eggshells to make everyone happy. Be considerate of others, yes, but if you have to make yourself miserable in the process you're not really living, are you?

"Upnorth" makes a good point about watching out for hastily issued "Gulf War II" kits, etc.

I'm inclined to see nothing wrong with modeling subjects from the current conflict. Modeling in large part is an effort to capture a little piece of history in three-dimensions, and the present events are clearly history-making. Modelers of military subjects have already come to terms with the fact that the objects of our fascination are, basically, designed to kill people and destroy things.

Frankly, I'm not opposed to the WTC diorama either, assuming it's done with respect for the victims (i.e., showing people jumping out of windows would *not* be acceptable). It was a horrifying, terrible event, and we would do well not to forget about it any time soon. If a diorama is more shocking to somebody than the ad infinitum re-plays the networks ran of the video showing the planes going into the towers, then maybe it's because seeing it depicted in three dimensions gives it a tangible quality that even the videos lack.

If there's something gruesome, gory, or otherwise offensive about a model or diorama, it really wouldn't be any less so if it represented events that happened 60 years ago or last month.

Small side notes on Iraq: I was mildly surprised to see that M113 APCs have been deployed there (remember the article in our April issue about modeling a Vietnam War-era M113). I'd have expected that they'd all been replaced by Bradleys in front-line service. Interesting....

Between Blackwolf, upnorth and Mr Hansen what else can be said. They say it so well.

Here endeth the lesson.

Yeah, Lawrence, I was rubbing my eyes. Thought I was seeing things, but I guess the Army (was that the 3rd ID at the airport?) has a few M113's left.

I'm not a full-fledged track head, but could it have been a mission-specific vehicle? Perhaps the M113 is better suited for some tasks than a Bradley. Also, does anyone know if an M113 is a bit roomier inside than a Bradley?

I told myself that I'd stick to WWII armor, but here I go again...

Fade to Black...

The Bradley IFV is exactly that -- an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Emphasizing the word "Fighting " Vehicle. They are not meant to replace the M113. The M113 is an Armored "People" Carrier -- an armored battlefield taxi.

The M113 is a very versatile vehicle. It still very common in the US Army. It's easy to maintain (there's a lot of knowledge in the Army about this vehicle), there is a high availability of parts, etc. It's also less expensive (purchasing, maintaining, training) than a Bradley IFV. The M113 and it's variants are used by maintenance (moving men and parts), by medics, by command units, mortar units, engineers and even the Air Force uses them for air controllers moving with US Army ground troops. I don't think you'll see the M113 being replaced for quite a long time. It's a simple, yet effective vehicle.

M113A1 Armored Personnel Carrier
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm

An addition to Bayonet's reply. The M113 can carry a dozen troops into combat. There two types of the Bradley One carries 2 dismounts and the other 6.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm

QUOTE: Originally posted by claymore68 An addition to Bayonet's reply. The M113 can carry a dozen troops into combat. There two types of the Bradley One carries 2 dismounts and the other 6. http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm

Right. The Bradley also has a bigger engine/transmission and has a turret. The M113 does not -- well unless you look at a couple of variants. There is the OSV which is a M113 with a Bradley turret on top.

The link that Derek provided, states the following:

The M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle [IFV] is a fully tracked, lightly armored vehicle that offers significant improvements over the M113 series of armored personnel carriers. The M2 posses greater power, greater acceleration, and an advanced suspension for a significant increase in cross-country speed. Like the M113, the primary purpose of the M2 is to carry infantryman on the battlefield, and transport and support them with fire if necessary. The M2 Bradley carries a crew of three (Commander, Gunner & Driver) and a six-man Infantry section into combat.

The M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle [CFV] is exactly the same chassis as the M2 IFV with some minor internal differences. The M3 is a cavalry/scout vehicle, instead of carrying 6 dismounts in the payload compartment, the M3 carries a pair of scouts, additional radios, ammunition, and TOW and Dragon or Javelin missile rounds. In fact, the only noticeable differences between the M2 and the M3 are that the external firing ports for the squad M16s are absent on the M3.


Don't get me wrong, the M2/3 is a nice vehicle, but I always thought it kind of funny being labeled a "scout" vehicle. It has a large silhouette and it's transmission emitted a whining noise as it would climb which announced it's presence in the middle of the night. This made it easier for us in the OPFOR to locate the Bradleys when they came out. (...more about the US Army, NTC)

I see nothing wrong with modeling hardware from the current conflict - I believe it serves to honor our brave men & women over there.

Amen, Pat, amen.
Lee

If you model an event or conflict that just makes you a historian. Someone who takes exception to the history and targets your modeling has deeper issues-forget about em!

is amodel not a snap shot of an event? if its by its self or in a diorama it can tell quite a story, kinda like a pictures worth a thousand words, exept with a model there is more detail. I think it's funny that some people want to re-write history just because it makes them uncomfortable. TO BAD!!!!. life is not fair and every day is not sunshine and lollipops, deal with it. If liberals can claim free speech for all that they shove down our throats why can't someone build a model with nose art from ww2 . this is part of our history, it is real and it needs to be preserved. Build what you want, it's your time and money, and effort, not everyone will like what you build,but it's the people who see it for what it is that make doing it worth while. Build on and enjoy the results from your effort.

Hey Recon,

Thanks for all that info on the M113/ Bradleys. Being a nut mostly for things with wings I haven't yet learned all that I'd like to know about targets, er... tanks and other military vehicles!

Seriously, thanks for posting all that. I was under the impression that the Bradleys had the same mission as the M113's and were, therefore, replacements. You learn sumthin' new everyday...

Fade to Black...

This reminds me a bit of a model of an F-105 I saw at a show years ago.

The model was a representation of one that served in Vietnam and had a very explicid piece of nose art, a naked woman laying across the top of the nose, the art incorporated the in flight refueling receptacle and must have been an interesting vision for any KC-135 boom operator that had the job of fueling it.

I can't remember if the plane was given a name or not and the art was ordered removed immediately on its return stateside.

The model was also ordered removed from the display table.

I don't object to the occaisional naked lady on the nose of an aircraft, some were vary tastefully done, some were overboard, but they're all part of the larger picture of history, like it or not.

Nose art of the sort on the F-105 that I've described here is not something I personally would do, I don't mind the suggestiveness of some of the WWII nose art, but the outright explicidness of somethings I've seen post war, just aren't my style.

To those that it is your style, go to it, it just isn't my style.

There were a few different versions of that type of nose art on an F-105, the names of which I won't repeat here lest the PC crowd moan and complain about it.

Okay, you fill in the blanks, if you don't embarrass easily that is; () The F-105's in question were called "Cherry Girl" and "P*s*y Galore". There were a couple different versions of the second one.

For anyone who's interested, Albatros Modelworks makes a decal sheet with these markings and a couple others (Including Memphis Belle II) called: "The Thud Alley - F-105 Nose Art" sheet #48005. These are gorgeous decals. Matter of fact, most of Albatros' sheets are absolutely stellar.

Fade to Black...

Its funny you guys spun off into the nose art issue.
I am an illustrator and graphic designer by trade. During the first Gulf War I offered to paint some nose art for a friend of mine just prior to him being deployed. It went over so well that a couple of the other squadrons jumped on board and I was painting all types of aircraft. The squadron commanders were very specific about what could and couldn't be painted. This unfortunately included the "pin-up" girls along with the art having to be somewhat politicaly correct. I got my fix doing the 40's style pin-ups for some warbirds at an airshow. It just seemd awfully ironic though that a country so bent on freedom and constitutional right had so many rules "censorship" for what could be displayed on the instruments that preserve that right. I still enjoyed it though. And the pilots and crews did as well. I had to explain it to some of the crews this way.
"What do you want to have represententing you, your squadron and your country? Constitutional right of free speech does not include yelling fire in a theatre or yelling racial and derogatroy remarks about another people or culture. Nor does it make it allowable to demean anyone for any reason. Its why we are the policemen of the world. Despite our own thoughts at the moment, we all still know wht is right and decent."

I painted alot of eagles, dragons, mascots, flags and cartoon characters.
As for the other stuff, it all has its time and place. I personaly love the risque pin-up art of the period and even the modern stuff is awesome. But it has its time and place.

Mike

Interesting comments there renarts.

I noticed in any photos I ever saw of Gulf War American nose art, that it was all pretty middle of the road, nothing too touchy one way or another.

By contrast, look at pictures of the art riding on the noses of RAF birds in that conflict, very much in the vein of the WWII pin up girl sort of thing or some sort of ribald humour cartoon.

Interesting contrast between allies there

QUOTE: Originally posted by upnorth By contrast, look at pictures of the art riding on the noses of RAF birds in that conflict, very much in the vein of the WWII pin up girl sort of thing or some sort of ribald humour cartoon.

That's because the Brits weren't afraid to express themselves regardless of who they may offend.

I personally don't go out of my way to offend someone, but if my opinions or oral utterings do just that, too bad. Our society is slowly evolving into one that is much too outwardly conscious of protecting other people's "rights" and feelings at the expense of the same consideration for our own. Nowadays, in certain areas around here, a shopkeeper draws all sortsa flak for putting up a sign that says "Merry Christmas" during the holidays. Why? Because he doesn't have one right next to it which says "Happy Hanukkah". Pathetic BS.

The 138th FS in Syracuse, NY used to be known as "The Boys From Syracuse". No longer. I forget the new name, but they're now referred to as "The Airpersons From Syracuse", in a joking manner. They had many mottos including, "A** in the Grass CAS" and "Fast A** CAS". Now it's just "PC CAS". Again, pathetic BS.

Fade to Black...

Oh yeah, almost forgot...

During the Gulf War (now being referred to as Gulf One or some such ) there was a guy named Warren Trask in the 363rd TFW that did a bunch of grease-pencil drawings on the unit's F-16's. Great work. I've done all sortsa work in many different mediums and I have to say that this stuff was damn good, especially for grease-pencil.

Anyhoo, some of it was rather suggestive, so at least someone in the US Military had the guts to cast all the PC BS aside and do what he or others wanted him to do.

If there's a "time and place" and if one group of individuals should have the right to do that kinda stuff, nevermind whose feelings they hurt, it's the folks in our armed forces who fight and risk everything for this country and for anyone else.

Fade to Black...