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

Townsy11 wrote:

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

cool

And in the spirit of the cold war... we already have the CIA commitee of integrity authentication

JMart wrote:

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! :)

well I'm not really a naval person (except that I have one), but do like submarines and some small craft. Yet nothing I'm interested in would fall in line with this build. Stateside armor is boring, and sorta generic depending on division SOP. But there are still some unique pieces out there. I'd liked to have done a Wild Weasel, but that's been ruled out in two ways. So I went with an RF4b Phantom (rather done an RF4e), and may even do a Skyraider later. The real problem here is that nobody has done much of anything between the Korean War and Iraq. Even Vietnam is a drought. So I'm going with Navy/Marine stuff this time around. Guess what we need now is an "undeclared war" group build! Or else somebody needs to add on some more kits to their line.

gary

Townsy11 wrote:

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?

Well, the Missile Crisis is a major event in the Cold War and it wasn't a shooting incident, so I would figure it fits. If there's a concern about Cuba not being a Warsaw Pact country, I'd say we could make an exception to the NATO-WarPact requirement for third parties involved in a major incident, or even just make an exception for Cuba. Or we could just say that even if an incident involved a non-NATO/WarPact country you can only build the NATO or Pact participants.

As for the WWII thing, I say any vehicle used during the timeframe, no matter when or were it was built. Just because something was built for WWII doesn't mean it wasn't a Cold War weapon.

I have just been reading the last four pages of posts and I must say I'm impressed by the polite intelligent way everybody has put their point of view forward.

If cross over builds are allowed then I would like to put in for a Marine Corps FJ-4B Fury belonging to Fighter Attack Squadron 323, the Death Rattlers.

My two cents on the ins and outs would be:

USA & NATO - In

USSR & Warsaw Pact - In 

Cuban Missile Crisis - In

Middle East - Out

Korea & Vietnam - Out

Asia Pacific - Out

Cheers

darson wrote:

My two cents on the ins and outs would be: USA & NATO - In USSR & Warsaw Pact - In  Cuban Missile Crisis - In Middle East - Out Korea & Vietnam - Out Asia Pacific - Out Cheers

I'm with David. The latter three could all be large GB in themselves.

darson wrote:

I have just been reading the last four pages of posts and I must say I'm impressed by the polite intelligent way everybody has put their point of view forward.

 Thanks, mate!

And BTW, Shawn of the Dead rocked!

mucker wrote:

I'm with David. The latter three could all be large GB in themselves.

And have been. Since I joined the site there's been at least one Korea build, one Vietnam build and (though the Arabs weren't in it ) an IDFAF build and an IDF build. Lots of material there.

AJB93 wrote:

Quick question, would USS Liberty count for this GB? She wasn't invloved in a conflict persay, but she was attacked by Israeli aircraft and FAC, so she is somewhere in a grey area I guess. What do you all think?

Well, if we make separate incidents involving NATO/Warsaw Pact countries ok then I would assume that it would be ok for this GB but then and again, there was combat involved, so I'm not 100% sure. If I let this in, then there will be tons of other people arguing what else will be aloud in. What does everyone think?

Townsy11 wrote:

AJB93 wrote: Quick question, would USS Liberty count for this GB? She wasn't invloved in a conflict persay, but she was attacked by Israeli aircraft and FAC, so she is somewhere in a grey area I guess. What do you all think? Well, if we make separate incidents involving NATO/Warsaw Pact countries ok then I would assume that it would be ok for this GB but then and again, there was combat involved, so I'm not 100% sure. If I let this in, then there will be tons of other people arguing what else will be aloud in. What does everyone think?

Oh, but the antenna fit out. That would be fun.

I'd say no on the Liberty, because the war has been ruled out.

FAC stands for fast attack craft.

mucker wrote:

darson wrote: My two cents on the ins and outs would be: USA & NATO - In USSR & Warsaw Pact - In  Cuban Missile Crisis - In Middle East - Out Korea & Vietnam - Out Asia Pacific - Out Cheers I'm with David. The latter three could all be large GB in themselves.

OK, I can see leaving the Pacific theater out, but then again I have one simple question. One of the leading exponets of the "Cold War" was the "cat & mouse" games played by submarines all over the world. There was much of it in the Pacific Ocean. If this is the case then somebody building a Soviet Alpha or a U.S. Boomer needs to be pretty specific on which boat he builds, and that may in itself be a little difficult. And while on the subject; what about all the interceptors we had stationed in Alaska and their Russian counter parts in Siberia? With all the mass of inventory we have at our hands this could (and maybe ought tobe ) an open ended group build. That way a fellow modeler could just keep adding to his inventory as he discovers new sources. Thus (maybe) bringing in an even bigger segment of the modeling community. Just some thoughts.

gary

SSNs are going to be a big part of the GB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Archerfish_%28SSN-678%29

http://horseandcow.com/bio.htm

cdclukey wrote:

I'd say no on the Liberty, because the war has been ruled out.

Well, the US weren't really involved in the Six Days War, and didn't retaliate after the attack; besides that, one could modell the USS Liberty as she appeared before the attack (she was actually deployed off the west coast of Africa for two years before the attack). Since she was somewhat of a spy ship (a "technical research ship", working for the NSA, except that she was not camouflaged as a civilian vessel like Russian spy ships), I would say she qualifies for this GB!

In my opinion, vehicles designed during WWII should generally not be allowed to join the GB unless they differ significantly from their WWII version. The USS Liberty, for instance, first operated as a Liberty Ship, but was then converted to an electronic surveillance ship in 1965 (Belmont-class): only the latter part of her carreer should be allowed for the GB.

squeakie wrote:

OK, I can see leaving the Pacific theater out, but then again I have one simple question. One of the leading exponets of the "Cold War" was the "cat & mouse" games played by submarines all over the world. There was much of it in the Pacific Ocean. If this is the case then somebody building a Soviet Alpha or a U.S. Boomer needs to be pretty specific on which boat he builds, and that may in itself be a little difficult.

As for the USS Dallas (which I intend to build), the answer is rather simple: she was stationed in New London, Connecticut, during most of the Cold War; part of her command operations reports are even available online (http://www.history.navy.mil/shiphist/d/ssn700.htm). So basically, she was active in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. All I now need to find are some accurate pictures of her conning tower and hull, to determine which colors should be used

bondoman wrote:

Thats a good point. And she was originally a Victory, not a Liberty. The Revell 1/400 USS Montrose landing ship is based on a Victory, I have one, and would be a good place to start.

 Ooops! My bet! You are perfectly right, she was first a Victory class ship

The only known instance of a Victory being converted to a "Liberty" LOL

I guess the name of the game is obfuscation. A spy(ship) in our midst, how cool!

Someone should build the Glomar Explorer!

squeakie wrote:

mucker wrote:  darson wrote: My two cents on the ins and outs would be: USA & NATO - In USSR & Warsaw Pact - In  Cuban Missile Crisis - In Middle East - Out Korea & Vietnam - Out Asia Pacific - Out Cheers I'm with David. The latter three could all be large GB in themselves. OK, I can see leaving the Pacific theater out, but then again I have one simple question. One of the leading exponets of the "Cold War" was the "cat & mouse" games played by submarines all over the world. There was much of it in the Pacific Ocean. If this is the case then somebody building a Soviet Alpha or a U.S. Boomer needs to be pretty specific on which boat he builds, and that may in itself be a little difficult. And while on the subject; what about all the interceptors we had stationed in Alaska and their Russian counter parts in Siberia? With all the mass of inventory we have at our hands this could (and maybe ought tobe ) an open ended group build. That way a fellow modeler could just keep adding to his inventory as he discovers new sources. Thus (maybe) bringing in an even bigger segment of the modeling community. Just some thoughts. gary

I hear what you're saying, Gary. In my personal opinion I think watercraft and interceptors stationed around the globe with the purpose of either ferreting information or defending against an attack (the main threat was a nuclear war, yes?) are definately well within the boundaries of the Cold War. I think the main point is to create the distinction between a Cold War vessel and Vietnam/Korea/Israel, etc.

It is indeed a large scope. I'm not sure if the others would be up for it, but maybe narrowing down to a particular timeframe or vehcile (armor, aircraft, ships) etc. would help?

Imperator-Rex wrote:

cdclukey wrote: I'd say no on the Liberty, because the war has been ruled out. Well, the US weren't really involved in the Six Days War, and didn't retaliate after the attack; besides that, one could modell the USS Liberty as she appeared before the attack (she was actually deployed off the west coast of Africa for two years before the attack). Since she was somewhat of a spy ship (a "technical research ship", working for the NSA, except that she was not camouflaged as a civilian vessel like Russian spy ships), I would say she qualifies for this GB!

 Excellent point, I withdraw my objection.

mucker wrote:

squeakie wrote:  mucker wrote:  darson wrote: My two cents on the ins and outs would be: USA & NATO - In USSR & Warsaw Pact - In  Cuban Missile Crisis - In Middle East - Out Korea & Vietnam - Out Asia Pacific - Out Cheers I'm with David. The latter three could all be large GB in themselves. OK, I can see leaving the Pacific theater out, but then again I have one simple question. One of the leading exponets of the "Cold War" was the "cat & mouse" games played by submarines all over the world. There was much of it in the Pacific Ocean. If this is the case then somebody building a Soviet Alpha or a U.S. Boomer needs to be pretty specific on which boat he builds, and that may in itself be a little difficult. And while on the subject; what about all the interceptors we had stationed in Alaska and their Russian counter parts in Siberia? With all the mass of inventory we have at our hands this could (and maybe ought tobe ) an open ended group build. That way a fellow modeler could just keep adding to his inventory as he discovers new sources. Thus (maybe) bringing in an even bigger segment of the modeling community. Just some thoughts. gary I hear what you're saying, Gary. In my personal opinion I think watercraft and interceptors stationed around the globe with the purpose of either ferreting information or defending against an attack (the main threat was a nuclear war, yes?) are definately well within the boundaries of the Cold War. I think the main point is to create the distinction between a Cold War vessel and Vietnam/Korea/Israel, etc. It is indeed a large scope. I'm not sure if the others would be up for it, but maybe narrowing down to a particular timeframe or vehcile (armor, aircraft, ships) etc. would help?

we think the same. I mean to say how could you not allow a TU-22m from Vladavostok or a Mig-31 as well? This could go on and on forever! Lastly; I beg to differ about shots being fired in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Seems to me that one destroyer put at least one shot accross the bow of one Russian ship. And there was one U-2 shot down along with several other attempts via SAM and Migs. Still I think the arena is very worthy of being allowed.

    Lastly the P-80 and the Skyraider were both actually WWII designs, but used for many years in one or another versions (even as a T-33). There were also Spitfires of the same issue, and who knows whatelse.

gary

Many interesting comments and information~! For what is worth:

I also think the Liberty should be in... only because it really has the "flavor" of Cold War (secrecy, spying, coverups, etc).

Any "strategic asset" (subs, interceptors) should be allowed irrespective of geo-location.

Yes, I agree with "shots were fired" in the Cuban Missile Crisis. "Shooting wars" maybe we can better define as drawn out conflicts vis-a-vis skirmishes or a day or two with minimum casualties.

bondoman wrote:

Townsy11 wrote:  AJB93 wrote: Quick question, would USS Liberty count for this GB? She wasn't invloved in a conflict persay, but she was attacked by Israeli aircraft and FAC, so she is somewhere in a grey area I guess. What do you all think? Well, if we make separate incidents involving NATO/Warsaw Pact countries ok then I would assume that it would be ok for this GB but then and again, there was combat involved, so I'm not 100% sure. If I let this in, then there will be tons of other people arguing what else will be aloud in. What does everyone think?     Not to my way of thinking since the Six Day War has already been disallowed, BUT that is a model I'd like to see. And inform me, what does FAC mean? The logical starting point might be the Revell 1:400 Montrose/ Randall based on the Victory ship. There's a nice thread abt that in Ships. Oh, but the antenna fit out. That would be fun.

FAC is Fast Attack Craft ;) I will be doing her in 1/192 if I do her. It's a comission build, so I'm not sure if I'll do her, but I might.

JMart wrote:

the "flavor" of Cold War (secrecy, spying, coverups, etc).

You've absolutely nailed it JMART.  Just throw in a potential nuclear world war fought with ICMBs and SLBMs with a dash of European conflict with the US an NATO planning to try to fight off hordes of USSR & Warsaw Pact tanks and to me that is the "flavour" of the Cold War.

Also, it's just my but I think that Chris (Townsy11) should have the final yes or no as to whether he thinks a build is in or out.  Otherwise we could still be sitting here discussing Ins and Outs for months.

Cheers

Cheers

darson wrote:

JMart wrote: the "flavor" of Cold War (secrecy, spying, coverups, etc). You've absolutely nailed it JMART.  Just throw in a potential nuclear world war fought with ICMBs and SLBMs with a dash of European conflict with the US an NATO planning to try to fight off hordes of USSR & Warsaw Pact tanks and to me that is the "flavour" of the Cold War. Also, it's just my but I think that Chris (Townsy11) should have the final yes or no as to whether he thinks a build is in or out.  Otherwise we could still be sitting here discussing Ins and Outs for months. Cheers Cheers

It looks like we're all pretty much in sync here.

Ok, Here's what I've come to decide:                         (thanks to all your excellent points)

  Well, in my opinion the Cold war is named so because it for the most part stayed "cold", This is why I don't think shooting incidents should be included in this GB because none really happened directly between NATO and WarPac countries. As for the Liberty, I don't think she would qualify for this GB, unless modelled before she was attacked by the Israeli's. (as suggested by Imperator-Rex)

  Pertaining to the WWII equipment being allowed/disallowed I have decided that WWII vintage equipment does qualify for this GB seeing as even though it wasn't designed for the cold war it would have definently fought and served with the countries if a war did break out.

  As for separate incidents involving NATO/WarPac countries (such as J-mart's destroyer in the Cuban missile crisis) I believe as long as no shots were fired during the event then it will be allowed.

Everyone who posted their entries I will be adding them to the list momentarily.

Townsy,