Thoughts on Aircraft vs Armor

Danke... read a couple of reviews and gotta get the AFV kit, which is way beyond my abilities in armor anyhow. It would make the old goat happy for Christmas.

M40 155mm Gun Motor Carraige, Bondo...

Here's a couple of pics of Dad's unit fighting the good war at Fort Grayling Michigan in 1950.

Please ID those artillery pieces.

Get the best of several worlds.. Fer instance... I'm building a diorama of a crashed Soviet Spitfire, near a railroad track, and the Wirbelwind that shot it down is approaching the crash site, while the Infantry who've just been delivered via an Opel Blitz are fanning out, looking for the pilot..

Figures, AFV, Automotive, and Railroading, all in one place..

My modeling sentiment, if it don't fly..... it don't fly .  That being said, I like looking at some armor, auto, heck even sci-fi but it's still the aircraft (WWII specifically) I like.  As far as AM, add-ons & whatnot, knock yourself out, it's your money.  I'm amazed at what some builders can produce and hope to continue to read, learn and build.

GreenThumb

Although I think some armor looks pretty cool such as the modern battle tanks, I don't build them much as they don't get my attention like aircraft do. I have been a plane nut all my life so that is what interests me most in modeling.

Also, when I was a kid, back in the 50s-60s there just were not nearly as many armor kits as aircraft and the ones that were around were pretty limited.I built one or two "blueprint" kits and someones DUKW. My army miniatures were pretty much limited to a LOT of GAM (s).

Armor is what brought me back into modeling though. When I got out of college and went to work, I made friends with a guy who built lots and lots of Tamiya Panzer 4's. He was a part of a crazy group of wargamers who fielded motorized armor models and shot at each others with pellet rifles. He got me to building a bunch of T34's, which had the inherent advantage of the electric motor in the back, but I would never have let anyone shoot them.

Aircraft is the most common and hence by default beginner category in modelling. It also has plenty of cheap kits for beginners to pick from, whereas in Armour you are looking at 1/72 scale if you are looking for things below $20.

With regards to aftermarket, I hoard them but don't use as much. My main issue with dedicated AM is it gives people false belief - AM is always better detaileded but the advantage ends there. In a way AM is viewed as superior to kit stock yet themselves are used unquestionaly much like a kit (where the AM instruction becomes reference subsitutes)

AM is in a way a cop-out. I build ships prodominately and one thing with ship PE is there are a lot of generic frets and you use them depending on referenes. There are no generic PE for aircraft aside from belts and tags.

stikpusher

You probably did not get exposed to AFVs enough as a child Mike

Probably so Carlos.  That and the fact that my dad was crew chief on Curtiss SB2C Helldivers at El Toro back in '44-45 and he loved aircraft as well. His love of aircraft obviously passed on to me because I am the only one of four brothers and a sister who is an airplane nut. Dad's favorite bird was the F4U Corsair by the way. He saw a lot of them in the South Pacific Theater I am sure.

Yup... Nuthin' like being a 17-year old PV2 and driving an M109A3 down the hardball...

You probably did not get exposed to AFVs enough as a child Mike

Although I think some armor looks pretty cool such as the modern battle tanks, I don't build them much as they don't get my attention like aircraft do. I have been a plane nut all my life so that is what interests me most in modeling.

Armor has'nt been a strong point of mine ,however I do appreciate a nice build regardless of wether it crawls or flies. The A/M P/E and resin debate has a great side as well as a dark one. Recently I used a vacum formed conversion kit for the first time , and it had its own set of unique challenges,along with some much needed P/E & A/M to pull the build off. Could I have scratched the conversion? Highly unlikely in this case ,at least not and make it even remotely true to scale and believeable. Yes scratch building is great and very rewarding if you get it right ,but lets face it it aint for everybody. When you sit back and think about it the trade offs for both sides of the debate are great and varied. The challenge is how high do you want to set the bar for yourself and still make the hobby rewarding and enjoyable without loosing the craftmanship of 'do it yourself' versus' buy it off the shelf'. Just my .02

No sweat, Slusher... I haven't contributed an artillery piece for quite awhile... Got some M109s on the bench though, as well as scratchbuilding (sloooowly) a FAASV...

Glad you got the Salute..

And as they said in your neck of the woods (judging from the Avatar) "If you're gonna be one, be a Big Red One!"

Hans von Hammer

Ahem... Spent the first third of my career as a "Gun Bunny" before going off to the Chemical Corps... M101A1s (Towed 105mm), M102s (Towed 105 mm), and M109A3 (155mm SP) .. Still carried 13Z MOS (E-8, Artillery Senior Sergeant, ) as my secondary MOS upon retiring (I was a "Dragon Soldier" then, 74Z, Chemical Senior Sergeant), although I've actually been awarded 3 different MOSs ( with none recinded) in the 29+years I served...  I was also a Recruiter (MOS 00E) for three years...

(I wish we had a salute emoticon)! 

Ask and ye shall receive..

Hoo-ah!  Sorry, Hans!  Didn't mean to leave ya out!  Just didn't know your background!  

Don't forget our favorite "Gun Bunnies"...artillery-men...Mike (Redleg12) and Gino (HeavyArty). 

Ahem... Spent the first third of my career as a "Gun Bunny" before going off to the Chemical Corps... M101A1s (Towed 105mm), M102s (Towed 105 mm), and M109A3 (155mm SP) .. Still carried 13Z MOS (E-8, Artillery Senior Sergeant, ) as my secondary MOS upon retiring (I was a "Dragon Soldier" then, 74Z, Chemical Senior Sergeant), although I've actually been awarded 3 different MOSs ( with none recinded) in the 29+years I served...  I was also a Recruiter (MOS 00E) for three years...

(I wish we had a salute emoticon)! 

Ask and ye shall receive..

Yes sir!  Sorry sir!  It won't happen again, SIR!   

I've taken the liberty of giving myself 40 lashes with a wet noodle! 

I figured since we were talking about nicknames for our 11-BangBang brethren I'd throw in that of the Kings of Battle.  In their defense, they may have actually pulled a lanyard at some point in their careers.  OBC perhaps? 

Yeah, my team always tried to stay as far away as possible from the command tracks...or as we called 'em "artillery magnets".

RESlusher

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!"

 

But I was listing nicknames for infantrymen, not artillerymen. Besides, as an armor guy, our interaction with field artillery was solely with the FIST team. Although they are artillerymen, they weren't actual cannon-cockers. They basically were the call for fire experts that rode around in a track that looked different from everyone else with lots of antennas. In tanker terms, that means "shoot us first."

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..

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.

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.

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!"

  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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...

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

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...