Thoughts on Aircraft vs Armor

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.

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.

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. 

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... 

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

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.

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.

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...

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...

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 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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.