Cold War GroupBuild 2008 (1/3/08 to 1/3/09).

cdclukey - nice list of choices.... I will follow whatever Tomnsy decides, as the originator of the thread... but preferences would be:

start - Berlin 1948

End - 1991

NATO and Warsaw Pact members - no Arab/Israeli nor Korea War (worth its own GB!)

No Pacific theater, if just to make things managable... NOrth Atlantic/Fulda gap & Strategic Cold War only

Also, you can consider MISSION - SSBNs are obvious choices, regardless of theather or country of origin.. only choose equipment designed, built, trained on for the use in a NATO/USSR confrontation? Just some thoughts! Cheers, James

Hey guys, Some Excellent points and ideas here.

First of all, I like the idea that all major descisions should be made by a group vote as opposed to me (it sure takes the pressure off!).

Second, The reason I chose 1955 as a start date and not earlier was because I didn't want anyone entering anything that was from the Korean war as I believe it is a different subject altogether. The reason I chose 1990 as an end date was because of the wall falling in '89 and the soviets breaking up in '91 1990 was sort of "in the middle".

I chose just the United States and the U.S.S.R. because I wanted to avoid all the little "sub conflicts" such as the Arab/Israeli war and because generally speaking when people think of the cold war they think of Moscow and Washington-- The two front runners if a war were to occur.

I would however, like to change some of the rules because of the excellent points you guys put up and I would like to make a GB where all the participants have a say in what they can enter.

So, We'll have a VOTE.

I have the following questions for the participants of the GB:

1. What do you guys think the start/end dates should be?

(I have changed my mind and I vote that the new start date should be 1947 and the end date as 1991 although this is just my vote so my opinion is worth as much as yours and feel free to say otherwise.)

2. Should the smaller "sub-conflicts" be included? Such as Korea, the Arab-Israeli wars and Vietnam?

(I vote no)

3.Should it be just the U.S.A and U.S.S.R.? If not then what countries should be included?

(I have again changed my mind, I vote that It should be just NATO and Warsaw pact countries) 

Polls open tonight and will close this sunday at 8 pm eastern U.S. time.

I will then tally up the results.

Thanks to Imperator-Rex, Cdclukey, Squeakie and J-mart for their input.

Also:

Squeakie: let me know when you have made your decision(s) 

SMJmodeler: Thanks I'll put it on the list.

Raptordriver: Thanks I'll put it on the list.

Please bear with me everyone and I would like to apologize for not making better decisions earlier and leaving this open to controversy. I have decided to push the dates ahead yet again to March 1, 2008 to March 1st 2009 until everything is sorted out.

Sincerely,

Chris,

I think the political discussion is excellent and well within the flavour of the GB !

I am in with a 1/48 F-86D ( Revell ), and I think I will finish it it the alternate kit decals - ie the Royal Danish Air Force, just for a different looking F-86 !

Cheers

Townsy- I'm in for sure with the AN-12 as a crossover build with the Heavy Lifters GB, but if time permits, which it probably will not, I've got a Heller Noratlas in the stash I plan to build in Bundesluftwaffe colors.

Townsy11 wrote:

Hey guys, Some Excellent points and ideas here. First of all, I like the idea that all major descisions should be made by a group vote as opposed to me (it sure takes the pressure off!). Second, The reason I chose 1955 as a start date and not earlier was because I didn't want anyone entering anything that was from the Korean war as I believe it is a different subject altogether. The reason I chose 1990 as an end date was because of the wall falling in '89 and the soviets breaking up in '91 1990 was sort of "in the middle". I chose just the United States and the U.S.S.R. because I wanted to avoid all the little "sub conflicts" such as the Arab/Israeli war and because generally speaking when people think of the cold war they think of Moscow and Washington-- The two front runners if a war were to occur. I would however, like to change some of the rules because of the excellent points you guys put up and I would like to make a GB where all the participants have a say in what they can enter. So, We'll have a VOTE. I have the following questions for the participants of the GB: 1. What do you guys think the start/end dates should be? (I have changed my mind and I vote that the new start date should be 1947 and the end date as 1991 although this is just my vote so my opinion is worth as much as yours and feel free to say otherwise.) 2. Should the smaller "sub-conflicts" be included? Such as Korea, the Arab-Israeli wars and Vietnam? (I vote no) 3.Should it be just the U.S.A and U.S.S.R.? If not then what countries should be included? (I have again changed my mind, I vote that It should be just NATO and Warsaw pact countries)  Polls open tonight and will close this sunday at 8 pm eastern U.S. time. I will then tally up the results. Thanks to Imperator-Rex, Cdclukey, Squeakie and J-mart for their input. Also: Squeakie: let me know when you have made your decision(s)  SMJmodeler: Thanks I'll put it on the list. Raptordriver: Thanks I'll put it on the list.   Please bear with me everyone and I would like to apologize for not making better decisions earlier and leaving this open to controversy. I have decided to push the dates ahead yet again to March 1, 2008 to March 1st 2009 until everything is sorted out. Sincerely, Chris,

* should we exclude Vietnam, then many of us will need a different kit to start with. The F105 and M48 were pretty much a Pacific rim item after the M60 and F111 came about. But for me that's not a biggie, so I'll just follow the lead here. The time from of 1947 to 1990 is excellent, and will allow several other pieces of equipment to open up. (M46 tank for one). The omission of British equipment puzzles me, and the Brits were heavilly involved in the Cold War.

* one must becarefull of the ending date or you'll get involved with ODS. Suggest that the end be at least six week prior to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Why not completely eleminate all arenas involving "non" NATO" or "Non Warsaw Pact" countries, but still keep the Warsaw Pact and NATO up and running no matter where they were at. After all the Cold War was really world wide.

To sum the above up; I simply will have to come up with another kit (not a big thing right now)if we exclude Vietnam. Maybe an early Abrams? Instead or a M46. I await your decission, and of course will follow suit.

gary

JMart--Thanks! Tanker toads like me have a mad on for that type of history. :-)

Squeakie--I feel your pain about getting another kit.

Townsy: You have no need to apologize. Here's my vote:

Start: 1947

Finish: 1991

Countries: NATO and Warsaw Pact only. I also vote for no shooting wars. Proxy wars are an important component in Cold War history, but if we draw the line there it is a lot less complicated. Also, no Desert Shield stuff...It wasn't a shooting war yet, but it also wasn't a part of the Cold War...heck, the Soviets showed up to help!

One last vote: Townsy, I appreciate your decision to let us vote, but if there's a lack of consensus, feel free to be a benevolent dictator. It's only a hobby, after all.

cdclukey wrote:

JMart--Thanks! Tanker toads like me have a mad on for that type of history. :-) Squeakie--I feel your pain about getting another kit. Townsy: You have no need to apologize. Here's my vote: Start: 1947 Finish: 1991 Countries: NATO and Warsaw Pact only. I also vote for no shooting wars. Proxy wars are an important component in Cold War history, but if we draw the line there it is a lot less complicated. Also, no Desert Shield stuff...It wasn't a shooting war yet, but it also wasn't a part of the Cold War...heck, the Soviets showed up to help! One last vote: Townsy, I appreciate your decision to let us vote, but if there's a lack of consensus, feel free to be a benevolent dictator. It's only a hobby, after all.

as I said it's not a big thing about having to select a new piece of equipment. I'll probably go with a piece of aircraft, as I find Cold War armor tobe somewhat generic. But then again I do have a couple pics of an M551 in Germany. Give me a couple days to decide on what it's gonna be, but I'm still in for the pain.

gary

So from what I gather so far it has to be a NATO vehicle used in Europe. That works well for my plans for the Centurion which is for a British vehicle serving in Germany during the 1960's. Its this kit which is of the Centurion standardized for NATO deployment..

AFV Club 1/35 Centurion Mk.5/2

The marking selection is for:

• Royal Netherlands Army
• Royal Danish Army x 2
• British Army x 2

 I'll await your final decision.

Mike T.

Townsy11 wrote:

I've created a brief list of some of the vehicles that would qualify for this GB: U.S.S.R.: T-80 series T-72 series T-64 series T-62 series T-55 series (not T-54) PT-76 series MT-LB series BMP-2 series BMP-1 series BMD-1 series BMD-2 series BRDM-1 series BRDM-2 series BTR-80 series BTR-70 series BTR-60 series   U.S.A.: M1, IPM1 Abrams M60 series M48 series (not M47's) M41 series Stingray and Stingray II LT's M2 and M2A1 series M113, M113A1 and M113A2 series LVTP7 AAAV series HMMWV series M151 MUTT series LAV-300 series Ranger series LAV-100, LAV-200, LAV-150 series (my list doesn't include SPG's and artillery but, they can join.) I'm not so sure about letting in WW2 vintage vehicles (i.e. Sherman) because they were not produced and used by either the USA or the USSR during the cold war (as far as I know). SMJ: So yes, a T-55A would qualify. Dostacos: They would all qualify except the M24 and M26. Jthurston: Great, I'll put you on the list. Zokissima: Great, I'll put you on the list. Cdclukey: Yes I was just wondering the scale of your build, I'll change it now. Imperator-Rex: Great, I'll put you on the list. Telsono: I guess since your centurion has the 105 it will qualify. I'll put you on the lis I belive that the T54 would qualify, due to the fact that it was used by many of the Warsaw Pact nations including East Germany and Poland into the 1980's. Just a thought.

The M-46 and M47 were used after the Korean war. Myself I'm twisted between an A1H Skyraider, RF4 Phantom, and the M-46. I did find an M-106 in my stash that I'd started somewhere along the line (had to be 20 years ago).

So are we going to ban the M-46 & M-47?

gary

What about X planes?  It fall in the date parameters.  The Mcdonald Douglas XF-85 Goblin

Ok, I'd be the first to admit, I know next to nothing about basically anything other than armor which is why I am now perhaps "in over my head" but, I have an Idea. I was thinking, Since this is probably going to be a very large GB with alot of variety in the subjects entered I propose that we have a "representative/leader/expert" for each area of subject matter that can be entered (one for armor, one for A/C, one for ships, and so on) and form sort of a "committee" that makes descisions for the GB and decides what qualify's or not. I know it's a little different from whats considered "the norm" in other GB's but I really think it could yield some good results. The leaders would probably be chosen due to whoever volounteers and has a considerable knowledge of the subject matter. Sorry if I'm being a little weird but what do y'all think?

Just wanted to voice my vote for the Cold War era start date. I'm for Post-1953.

The U.S. and Soviets were at odds ever since they were allies during WWII. The Korean War was essentially the U.S/ROK (and allies) vs. North Korea and China (with Soviet assistance). The Cold War is seen as the U.S. vs. USSR, and it's considered "Cold" becuase there were no "hot" points or battles directly between the two (that the public would be aware of).

I think you should NOT include Vietnam, the Israeli wars, etc. for the same reason. I don't say this to discredit any of the other conflicts, but merely to limit the scope of this already huge GB.

These are just my 2 cents and, again, meant only the help determine the scope of the GB. Whichever you decide as era dates and acceptable scope, I can live with.

Hey guys,

Thanks for those interesting comments and reactions.

OK so here's my vote:

1. What do you guys think the start/end dates should be? 

-> 1947 to 1991 sounds fine to me (without ODS of course)

2. Should the smaller "sub-conflicts" be included? Such as Korea, the Arab-Israeli wars and Vietnam?

-> nope; this would make this GB too big, and those conflicts deserve a special GB anyway. And even though proxy wars were part of the Cold War, I think the original idea of this GB was to put the emphasis on the "passive" confrontation between the 2 superpowers and their respective allies. The GB should thus be limited to the "defensive" aspects of the Cold War, i.e. those which did not degenerate into a conflict. 

3. Should it be just the U.S.A and U.S.S.R.? If not then what countries should be included?

-> USA, USSR & their respective allies. It should include NATO/WarsawPact forces stationed in the US, USSR, Europe, and -maybe- elsewere: for instance Korea, but the vehicles would then have to be built as they appeared after the war. Neutral countries (such as Switzerland) should be excluded, because they would have entered the war only if they felt threatened (not necessarily to protect an ally). France should be included, because even though it left NATO's "integrated military command", it remained a member of the alliance and had its own forces stationed in Germany to counter a possible Soviet attack and protect Europe. British forces should, of course, be included (as part of NATO).

4. I propose that we have a "representative/leader/expert" for each area of subject matter that can be entered (one for armor, one for A/C, one for ships, and so on) and form sort of a "committee" that makes descisions for the GB and decides what qualify's or not

-> sounds good; but I don't think that we'll get that much difficult decisions to take. I would propose those Committees counsel you whenever you have a doubt.

But in the end, I'm open to anything Townsy/the GB decides. 

Chris 

That all sounds good to me. The "other wars" definitely should be excluded.

Was wondering why my old thread had died...there's a new one!

Townsy, still have yet to determine what I'll be building, but lots of good ideas getting thrown around here.

Imperator-Rex wrote:

Hey guys, Thanks for those interesting comments and reactions. OK so here's my vote: 1. What do you guys think the start/end dates should be?  -> 1947 to 1991 sounds fine to me (without ODS of course) 2. Should the smaller "sub-conflicts" be included? Such as Korea, the Arab-Israeli wars and Vietnam? -> nope; this would make this GB too big, and those conflicts deserve a special GB anyway. And even though proxy wars were part of the Cold War, I think the original idea of this GB was to put the emphasis on the "passive" confrontation between the 2 superpowers and their respective allies. The GB should thus be limited to the "defensive" aspects of the Cold War, i.e. those which did not degenerate into a conflict.  3. Should it be just the U.S.A and U.S.S.R.? If not then what countries should be included? -> USA, USSR & their respective allies. It should include NATO/WarsawPact forces stationed in the US, USSR, Europe, and -maybe- elsewere: for instance Korea, but the vehicles would then have to be built as they appeared after the war. Neutral countries (such as Switzerland) should be excluded, because they would have entered the war only if they felt threatened (not necessarily to protect an ally). France should be included, because even though it left NATO's "integrated military command", it remained a member of the alliance and had its own forces stationed in Germany to counter a possible Soviet attack and protect Europe. British forces should, of course, be included (as part of NATO). 4. I propose that we have a "representative/leader/expert" for each area of subject matter that can be entered (one for armor, one for A/C, one for ships, and so on) and form sort of a "committee" that makes descisions for the GB and decides what qualify's or not -> sounds good; but I don't think that we'll get that much difficult decisions to take. I would propose those Committees counsel you whenever you have a doubt.   But in the end, I'm open to anything Townsy/the GB decides.    Chris

with respect to your fine post, I think the GB should actually be split into two areas. Europe and Pacific. Otherwise it will be so big that it's near impossible to keep track of. I have no problem with the 1953 date, but one needs to think about just what the Cold War really was. It was just another way of stopping Soviet expansionizm. Be it in Poland or the South China Sea. It does seem hard not to enter some of the smaller probes (Vietnam & Korea were not small) made by the combatants. I mean to say you had a world full of border clashes and other various things (Cuban Missile Crises for one). Many things happened during that time frame in Eastern Europe that are not spoken of much these days (Hungary for one). I agree that all the Middle East clashes should be left for themselves too.

    So what we'll see is spic & span tanks that are going to be pretty generic in appearence. A few unique aircraft, and of course ships. There will be little weathering involved as the armor units were kept very clean. When the paint got chipped it was touched up ASAP. That's one reason why I'm thinking I'll go with some form of aircraft.  At least I can do something with it to make it look used. I not sure what will work with naval vessels and that time frame, but do know a lot of WWII ships were still in service in that time frame.

    So with the above in mind I'm thinking an F4G or a RF4E is what it's going to be for me; unless I can find something a little more interesting.

gary

I'll do a 1/48th Hasegawa RF4B, and maybe something else.

gary

Wow, lots of posts since I last checked! You picked a good one Townsy ;)

For what is worth, my two sprues worth:

- I agree with the 'non-shooting" wars idea, will limit the scope of the GB. Down the road we can do a whole series of GBs working "up" the timeline (Korea, VIetnam, Arab-Israeli, Falklands, etc).

- Another "gray zone" will be equipment built with WW2 in mind, but used down the road (such as the US battlewagons). I would vote NO in those cases.... just to (again) limit the scope of the GB a tad. Only equipment built for COLD WAR purposes.

- Someone up the thread mentioned Pacific/Atlantic division - I agree, except in the overlapping area of strategic navy assets, but enough duplication in both oceans, not a big deal (ie, dont get caught up in the "was this particular SSN/SSBN in the pacific or atlantic"?)

- NATo/Warsaw is more of a "COld War" inclusion than US/USSR. I vote for the former

- I am not NOT an expert by any stretch (as my continuous newbie questions attest!;) but I can help out a bit in the naval side of things, I can look up what kits are available (in plastic) that represent Cold War ships. Some Dragon premium kits (of the modern sea power series) depict ships COM after 1991, or before but with post-1991 markings. Of course, there is a whole world of resin out there of which Im clueless! :)

Cheers, james

JMart wrote:

Wow, lots of posts since I last checked! You picked a good one Townsy ;) For what is worth, my two sprues worth: - I agree with the 'non-shooting" wars idea, will limit the scope of the GB. Down the road we can do a whole series of GBs working "up" the timeline (Korea, VIetnam, Arab-Israeli, Falklands, etc). - Another "gray zone" will be equipment built with WW2 in mind, but used down the road (such as the US battlewagons). I would vote NO in those cases.... just to (again) limit the scope of the GB a tad. Only equipment built for COLD WAR purposes. - Someone up the thread mentioned Pacific/Atlantic division - I agree, except in the overlapping area of strategic navy assets, but enough duplication in both oceans, not a big deal (ie, dont get caught up in the "was this particular SSN/SSBN in the pacific or atlantic"?) - NATo/Warsaw is more of a "COld War" inclusion than US/USSR. I vote for the former - I am not NOT an expert by any stretch (as my continuous newbie questions attest!;) but I can help out a bit in the naval side of things, I can look up what kits are available (in plastic) that represent Cold War ships. Some Dragon premium kits (of the modern sea power series) depict ships COM after 1991, or before but with post-1991 markings. Of course, there is a whole world of resin out there of which Im clueless! :) Cheers, james

I think a battleship with all the late model revisions should be allowed (I'm not doing one), and any aircraft carrier that has an angled flight deck ought tobe allowed (even the refitted Essex class). Have no idea about submarines, but do know that the used WWII era destroyers as late as the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as the Gulf of Tonkin. Alot of Korean war stuff was WWII issue, and was used all the way into the early sixties (mostly softskin). B-29's as well as B-50's were used in the early fifties. And we all know about the B-26K in the mid sixties. So what I'm saying here is that a lot of WWII designs (even the skyraider was) were used well into the sixties.

gary

  Well the general consensus seems that the dates should be 1947-1991, It should be just NATO(France aswell) and Warsaw pact countries and that all the other wars happening during this time period (Korea, all the Arab/Israeli wars, Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, The Falklands and Operation Desert Storm[Granby]) should be excluded. But, That leaves a problem, what about events such as the cuban missile crisis? Should we include ships/planes/subs that took part? (I know J-mart wants to build a destroyer that took part in this) The other issue that still persists is, Should WWII vintage equipment (with the necessary upgrades) be allowed? I can go either way on this one, so what do you guys think?

Also:

Results may vary: I think that your Goblin would qualify because it falls within the date parameters, I'll put you on the list :)

Thanks for bearing with me guys, 

Chris,

Chris:

Based on your two questions, here is my vote:

1. U.S. and Soviet machines involved inthe Cuban Missile Crisis is very much a part of the Cold War. The U.S. and Soviets ALMOST came to exchange blows. I think J-Mart's deystroyer is definately within the spirit of Cold War GB. I think the Cuban MIssile Crisis actually upped the nervousness that characterizes the COld War period for both countries.

2. WWII vintange equipment that was upgraded ans actually used in the Cold War period should be allowed. For example, the RB-50 and other upgraded "ferret" equipment is definately a big part of the Cold War.

Again, just my thoughts.

squeakie & cdclukey - Yes, good points, I did not think my suggestion clear thru. I agree with both of you, too much equipment was re-fitted/upgraded from WW2 types, prototypes or designs.

Not just because I am planning on a ship that formed part of the Cuban missile crisis, but I think that event is crucial to the Cold War "mood" as stated by mucker, but I will do whatever you/the group decides!.

Cheers, James

(I sort of miss my NY GIANTS propaganda line! :)