Diorama "German Field Artillery"

criticalem and Nick Nasta, thanks so much for your kind comments. For painting 1:35 figures, I think using a small brush is better than an airbrush. For larger scales, airbrush may help reduce painting time.

The Typhoon was an excellent fighter bomber, but during the time of D-Day through the advance through France. The dearth of enemy aircraft allowed all types of fighter aircraft to be employed in the ground attack mode. P-38's and P-47's were used alot, as well as the P-51 Mustangs in ground asttack roles. Typhoons were exclusively used by the British in their tactical air command, but they also used Mustangs in the same capacity.

Mike t.

Excellent painting skills and figure placement but I'm not too keen on the trees or shrubs and the green ground cover but the rest is fantastic. The rust on the cannon looks great too.

It looks great! I REALLY loved how you painted the infantry

It looks so, so.  He didn't paint, build, nor touch them though.  He has others build them for him (and compensates them somehow?).  Then he just posts here looking for atta boys on how great "his" models are.  Not really worth looking at or commenting.

It looks great! I REALLY loved how you painted the infantry, they look incredibly sharp.  I always use a brush to paint my figures because I don't really know how to use an airbrush

SupressionFire

bbrowniii Woah you are right. What was the origional post about again? Doh!

Ummmmmm.... no clue....

bbrowniii Woah you are right. What was the origional post about again? Doh!

Hey SuppressionFire,

Why are you so fired up about a plane that appears in the movie for about 2 seconds??   Was it even a Mustang?  I remember the scene, but don't remember the specific bird...

Particularly for something that, while not common, was not completely inaccurate or improbable.  The Mustangs were mounted with up to 10 rockets on under-the-wing pylons.

All in all, I'd say that 'Saving Private Ryan' has to get very high marks for attention to historical detail.  Did they get every nit-picking little detail right, no.  Were there some glaring 'errors' or 'liberties' taken, sure.  Still, all in all, they did a pretty good job.  As Al said, to the general public, the inaccuracies are not so blatant as to disrupt the story or, more importantly, the impact of the movie...

Wow, this has gone WAY

How the heck did we get to 'Saving Private Ryan' from one of MM's dios???

I give you Windtalkers. CGI aircraft flying overhead looked like CGI aricraft flying overhead. That as far more distracting than a Mustang attacking the "Tiger." Again, it was a movie for the general public. Better to have a few of us noting the "Tiger" was really a Russina tank in a Halloween costume and a Mustang doing close air support then try  to CG a plane pehaps 99% of the audiences wouldn't recognize do the attack. A  good deal of the general public would likely recognize a P-51 as an American aircraft rather than some big chinned camoflaged bird.

I'm familiar with the StarWars style SPFX...we had a guy who did subcontract work for them give a presentation at one of our meetings.

SupressionFire

 Inaccurate documentrys? Most fail to give proper credit or even mencion Canada's war time efforts. De Havilland was a aircraft manufacture based in Quebec, Canada. They designed and built the Mosquito out of mostly wood to conserve precious alunimum for other war efforts and projects. The Mosquito became the fastest twin engine fighter / bomber of the war. Its plywood construction made it the most advanced, as it had stealth properties against radar. Post war and to this date the De Havilland Beaver, a float plane developed for the Canadian north is what most know De Havilland for today.

Way, way  now, but  the Mosquito was designed by DHC's parent company in Britain. Of the total production of 7,781 aircraft, 1.134 were produced by DHC.

ajlafleche

'Try getting that one as a flying prop for a movie.'

Now the thread is officially off topic shall I elaborate further?...Long ago, in a galaxy far far away. Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas made a film called 'Star Wars' the year was 1977. Long before computer generated graphics they managed to create realistice space ship scenes useing scale minatures, or models if you will. Ground breaking as it was a parallel can be drawn to modern films and the problem of recreating historically accurate works. Now this is where our hobby or interists tie into everything, there are precice scale model planes that actually fly! Usually of larger scale they are just a accurate if not more so than any seen at various model contests. Basically the bigger the model more accuracy and detail can be achieved. Museums prefer 1/15 scale for this reason also for the origionality of their displays, as this usually requires scratchbuild only subjects.

Once again a parallel can be made between our hobby and the work produced for the big screen. It is all in the vision and determination of the creator as to its quality. Historically accurate films are within reach given the computer generated visual effects available and dedicated modelers who make it happen.

In conclusion I disagree, you do not need the last Typhoon for a movie prop. There are alternatives available for much less expence or sacrafice to historical artifacts that belong in museums. Without searching the internet I am willing to guess someone has a Typhoon in large scale, historically accurate to the last rivet in flying condition. Some invasion strips with computer generated rockets and Steven Spielberg could of had his 'Tank buster' With that production it was within budget, yet as you said 'Its a movie for the general public'

Inaccurate documentrys? Most fail to give proper credit or even mencion Canada's war time efforts. De Havilland was a aircraft manufacture based in Quebec, Canada. They designed and built the Mosquito out of mostly wood to conserve precious alunimum for other war efforts and projects. The Mosquito became the fastest twin engine fighter / bomber of the war. Its plywood construction made it the most advanced, as it had stealth properties against radar. Post war and to this date the De Havilland Beaver, a float plane developed for the Canadian north is what most know De Havilland for today.

SupressionFire

'Saveing Private Ryan' was a touching story yet the historic military inaccuracies distract ...Typhoons armed with rockets were the tank buster of choice in Normandy.  

It's a movie for the general public, not a documentary for military historians and trivia buffs. It comes much closer to getting it right than dozens of other movies during and  after WWII, including countless "documentaries" that show SBD Dauntless beginning a dive bombing run on Pearl Harbor.

As to using a Typhoon for the movie, " Only one complete Hawker Typhoon still survives - serial number MN235 - and it is on display at the RAF Museum in Hendon, North London. It was previously on display at the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) (Smithsonian Institution) before being presented to the museum in commemoration of the RAF's 50th Anniversary in exchange for a Hawker Hurricane. The Hawker Typhoon replica at the Memorial de la Paix, Caen (France) had been reconstructed from some original components." Source

Try getting that one as a flying prop for a movie.

'Saveing Private Ryan' was a touching story yet the historic military inaccuracies distract from it being a truly great movie. Steven Spielberg admitted it was more about the story line and bringing the viewer to places like the beach scene and the French county side than concern or expence of getting every detail correct. Like all acronyms FUBAR has been morphed into other meanings over time.

The dialog to FUBAR was humerious yet the two inaccuracies that grind my gears are:

7.62 ammunition works better with primers. Typhoons armed with rockets were the tank buster of choice in Normandy. Mustangs were prone to ground fire, mainly used for bomber escorts and destroying the Luftwaffle in the air. 

Im sure Sargent Rock, Easy Co. and their howling comando's are going to pounce on this reply.

SupressionFire

...FUBAR = 'Fricked up beyond all recognition' In WWII troops that had to be identified by dog tags due to disfigureing wounds were coined this phraze....

FUBAR is generic and applies to any situation which the military has hopelessly muddled, hence FUBAR.  It does not necessarily apply to fatalities.

Alright MM the guns do look realy nice, but I belived I noticed another mistake, Everyone makes 'em, The muzzle at the end of the gun appears charred, now I can't confirm this, but I belive most black marks at the end of weapons were caused not by soot from gunshots but by sloppily cleaning the weapon, spilt cleaning materials and the like. Of course I could very well be wrong.

Other than that the gun looks very good, (Although I prefer the fieldgrey one).

In the context it is used, I'd guess that 'MLR' is referring to the 'Main Line of Resistance', although I think that term fell out of use and was replaced first by 'FEBA' - Forward Edge of the Battle Area, and then, about 10 years ago or so, by FLOT - the 'Forward Line of Troops'.

FNG = 'Frickin new guy' Add more explicid word for 'F' In Vietnam soldiers avoided becoming close to new troops 'in country' as they were more likely to be KIA in their first few months of their tour.

FUBAR = 'Fricked up beyond all recognition' In WWII troops that had to be identified by dog tags due to disfigureing wounds were coined this phraze. Morbid humor was needed to get through such events.

MLR? not sure on this one, added FUBAR just because.  

beachbumRoss, thanks so much for your kind words. You mentioned MLR and FNG, what are they?

beachbumRoss

Hey, I think this is fantastic!

Who know's...........The fire team may have scrounged the aiming stakes from a Howitzer unit during their movement towards the MLR.

The idle Trooper next to the right wheel?............He's gotta be the FNG :)

 

Yeah, except they are not aiming stakes....

Ah, yes, the FNG.... why didn't I think of that...?

Hey, I think this is fantastic!

Who know's...........The fire team may have scrounged the aiming stakes from a Howitzer unit during their movement towards the MLR.

The idle Trooper next to the right wheel?............He's gotta be the FNG :)

SuppressionFire, many thanks for your kind comments and suggestions. I'll pass on the idea on concealed position to AI the builder. You have some points.

armornut, thanks for your info. I got the Jan issue since late last month but up to now has read just a few pages. Lately I spent more time surfing the Web and watching TV than reading books. The last three issues of Time magazines still lay around, barely read. I might buy the same kit from Trumpeter if I get it at 40% off late this month, which will be around $40 and that's acceptable. CU around.

hi MM,the kit reviewed is in the Jan 2010 issue,its the Sdkfz7/2 3.7 w/ Flak 37 ,i have one from tamiya and built the same a long time ago . the more i look at it i think that i'll get the dragon one as well for myself for christmas the U.S price ranges from $59.95 to 65.95 U.S. dollars . the LHS has one on the shelf hope its still there in a couple weeks.catch ya later.

The Pac 40 anti-tank gun looks great! The rusty scratches are in the right places for a in use weapon. All the elements are there, more research into how they opperated in the field would produce a more convincing diorama. Use the entire space to draw the viewers eye around. There shouldn't be more than a 2" square without something of visual interist.

Most photos of anti-tank crews in action show the gun hidden behind cover and consealed. It took brave men to face off against tracked terror, any advantage they could find was exploited to the fullest.

Stephen, thanks for your kind comments. Have you shown your two kits built this year? The 1/48 Superfortress is gotta be a big one, what's its length and width? And what are the three more kits in progress?

Guney, thanks for your kind words.

armornut, what Dragon kit you read in FSM review, and what issue of FSM?
Last week I saw a lot of new kits from Dragon, Trumpeter and Tamiya in a hobby shop and they're just too much for me to afford all. Not only armors but also warplanes and warships. I bought just two kits first - German 17cm Kanone and Railway Flatbed - both from Trumpeter. I'm still eyeing many more kits.

bbrowbiii, thanks for your kind comments and suggestions. I don't know why AI painted the trailing leg red and white, he might have some reasons. I also don't know what that guy was doing. Also thanks for your answer to Wirraway's question on the kit.

falschirmjager, I think you're right. I thought 'artillery" means cannon and this is one.

zokissima, thanks for your kind comments on the painting. As for camera I think the one I've been using (Canon T-70 SLR w/ 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 Macro zoom lenses and 2x/4x close-up filters) is as good as could be. All pictures were taken using time exposure technique for highest depth of field. Formerly I used black backdrop but for this page I tried blue one for a change. Do you prefer black one?

Hans, thanks for your suggestion, I'll pass it on to AI.

Wirraway, Dragon sells this as a kit as mentioned - Pak 40 w/ Fallschirmjagers. This is not the first kit that AI built, he built the first one 4-5 years ago:



Mikeym, what I like about this kit is the metal projectiles. They're aluminum and brass (2in1) that don't need painting at all (see new picture above) But later release of this kit has different kind of metal projectiles and they need some painting. Have you built your kit yet?

Wirraway wrote:

Do Dragon sell this as a kit ?  Paratroops with an A/T gun, it just doesnt sound right to me.  Do they airdrop the gun with the troops ?  And how do they transport it once on the ground ?  I realise fallschirmjager sometimes fought as regular ground troops and werent always parachuted in.

Yup this is a dragon kit. I have exactly the same kit right down to the same Falshrimjager figures. Course these same figures also come with the 80mm mortar.

Wirraway wrote:

Do Dragon sell this as a kit ?  Paratroops with an A/T gun, it just doesnt sound right to me.  Do they airdrop the gun with the troops ?  And how do they transport it once on the ground ?  I realise fallschirmjager sometimes fought as regular ground troops and werent always parachuted in.

Pretty much from 1941 on (after the battle for Crete) the Germans were done using paratroops as parartroops - from that time on they fought as ground troops.  I'm not sure, but I think the Germans did one more small para operation after Crete, but nothing significant. 

There are some great pics of German Falshirmjaegers fighting at Cassino supported by Stugs and (if I recall) using Pak-40s, so this kit is not unrealistic.