volume 11, issue 9 amms brisbane news · modelart challenge—who’s game? (thanks graham...
TRANSCRIPT
and comes back in the
door with another pile,
telling his wife “Nobody
wanted to buy them”,
when in fact the pile with
which he returns is not the
same pile he had when he
left!
I only hope I’m not around
when Bruce Hay decides
to get rid of his stash of
1000+ (yes, ONE THOU-
SAND) kits – I think even
if they are evenly distribut-
ed among all the other
members of AMMS, they
would be the cause of
more than one divorce!
So how do we get around
the problem? We don’t,
and that’s
just part of
the fun of
being a
modeller.
Unusually for me, this rant
is being written, not just
before publishing the cur-
rent month’s newsletter,
but shortly after the previ-
ous one. AMMS members
will recall there was con-
siderable discussion at
the meeting regarding the
best way of handling (for
want of a better word)
Andy Reid’s stash and
library, and it got me
thinking (yes, dangerous, I
know).
I know we all purchase
kits for one of three rea-
sons – 1) because we
want the kit to build in the
near future or 2) because
we like the kit and might
build it one day or 3)
somebody was selling it
cheap and we snapped up
a bargain.
The problem with 1) then
arises that with the prolif-
eration in release of new
kits, the possibility of
building one of the kits we
bought to build in the near
future becomes less and
less likely as the kits con-
cerned get supplanted by
newer ones. I know this
because there are several
Sd Kfz 251 kits in my
stash which I bought from
Hobby and Toys when
Andrew was still in the
City and they still haven’t
been built.
An argument for 2) could
be that there will be a lim-
ited release or future price
rise which makes us
hoard like squirrels hoard
nuts. I used to use the
argument with SWMBO
that I was building up my
stash for my retirement.
Having now been retired
for a bit over four years, I
seem to have completed
numerous kits in that time,
but the stash hasn’t de-
creased any!
In the case of 3), well, that
is the Andy Reid situation
– a modeler who is no
longer modelling and
somebody wishes to get
rid of the stash (you can
bet it’s not likely to be
Andy!) We have all seen
the feeding frenzy which
ensues when anybody
brings a stash to a meet-
ing with the intention of
selling same, as we all
like a bargain. One can
only hope that what we
save on buying kits at re-
duced prices in situations
such as these will make
up for the loss we will suf-
fer when selling our own
stash at some time in the
future.
Of course, there are al-
ways Buy, Swap and Sell
meets such as PX, and I
know of at least one club
member who goes out the
door with a pile of kits to
sell, attends the meeting,
Editorial (aka Rob’s Rantings)
7 November 2015
Volume 11, Issue 9
AMMS Brisbane News
Inside this issue:
From the Cupola 2
Modelart Challenge 3
Origin of Scales 4
Items for Sale 5
WW2 Interesting Stuff 6
Oldie but Goodie 7
Odds & Sods 9
.
Page 2
AMMS Brisbane News Volume 11, Issue 9
Eagles and Turkeys – Part 3
You may recall from my ongoing article adorning the last few issues of the newsletter that I have been attempting to
hypothetically unravel the mysteries of manufacturing decision making and processing parameters relating to kit
design and production, and more specifically exploring the reasons why all kits are not created more or less equally.
As we have established previously, some kits are highly accurate, fun to build and good value for money, whereas
others are highly inaccurate, a nightmare to construct, and expensive. Obviously there are kits that fall into many
other categories for example a kit might be poorly moulded and detailed, and inexpensive to buy, but the focus here
is on better made kits and their variable range of quality and price. This “quality and price” factor leads us to our
last conundrum – how do we as consumers make sure manufacturers continue to strive for products that are accu-
rate, buildable and value for money, and what should we do about it if they fail.
Let’s think about the major manufacturers for a moment. We know who they are because we know what they have
produced and we identify their standard based upon their previous products. Now think about some of their more
recent releases and a). How they compare with previous products from the same company, b). How they compare
with kits from other companies, and c). How they compare with kits that we know are accurate, fun to build and
good value for money.
I think you would agree that one or two manufacturers seem to have regressed with their standards either on all of
their products or on some, and that most of us have found out the hard way by purchasing a kit based on the com-
pany’s reputation only to discover that the kit is bad and amounts to an expensive piece of worthless plastic.
So why would a company that has produced quality products at relatively good prices in the past want to produce
kits that are sub-standard now? We know that they can produce outstanding kits that are very accurate, enjoyable
to build, and are comparatively reasonably priced because they have before! But even more puzzling is why they
release mediocre products side by side with quality products? And why they expect us to pay more for the medio-
cre releases!
So somewhere along the line someone within the company with the power to impose their will has decided to poorly
research the subject, skimp on detail and accuracy, promote the product as accurate, and sell it for exorbitant pric-
es! Does that make any sense at all? Was the decision made because of a perceived acknowledgement among
the consumers that the products released by the company are industry leading quality and value? But won’t a me-
diocre release hurt their brand?
Branding is of course an important factor for any company – building up a brand so that consumers will simply pur-
chase their products because of previous favourable impressions and experiences. However it seems that some of
the model manufacturers have built up their brand by striving for good value for money, accurate and well detailed
quality kits, and then rested on their perceived laurels by releasing what many modellers would simply call garbage.
Honestly it can’t be any good for their brand, and was always going to be a bad idea!
Continued on Page 8
For those unaware Modelart Australia magazine is running a modelling challenge
through their Facebook page starting this month and running for a year. Similar to our
Tamiya and pre-2000 kit comps we’ve run at the club previously, you need to build a kit
more than 10 years old and post the photos on the events page they have created. This
is a great opportunity to experiment with your techniques and with 2 months till our peo-
ple’s choice at the end of the year, time to get something finished for then. I’ll be sub-
mitting Tamiya’s M113A1 FSV. So get digging in the deep recesses of your stashes
and bring out those musty relics (and no, I don’t mean Rusty!).
Modelart Challenge—Who’s Game? (thanks Graham McNamara)
Page 3
Volume 11, Issue 9 AMMS Brisbane News
Four year old grandson
was in the garage t’other
day and found a part un-
der the model bench. It
was a cartridge box from
a Sd.Kfz 138 Grille,
about 6x4x4mm, and I’d
been looking for the
damn thing for about 20
minutes.
Of course, eagle eye
spotted it within five sec-
onds of walking into the
garage and informed me
“Pa, you shouldn’t make
models when I’m not
here ‘cos then you don’t
have anybody to find the
parts when you drop
them”! Unfortunately,
he’s quite right!
Snippets
I have always wondered what was the origins of the various scales in modelling. It al-
ways seemed a bit odd that we would have 1/32 and 1/35 scale and 1/76 and 1/72 scale.
I mean, we are all familiar with the origins of 1/76 scale but why the introduction of 1/72
scale? So I have done a bit of research and this is what I came up with. Please feel free
to enlighten me if the information is incorrect or is lacking some more details.I have only
included the main scales we as military modellers work with, so I have not included any-
thing larger than 1/32 and have excluded 1/76 scale and smaller.
1/32 Also known as "three-eighths scale", since 3⁄8 inch represents one foot. 1/32 is the scale
for Gauge 1 toy and model trains and was the scale used in some of the earliest plastic
model car kits. The scale was once so common for the use in trains, cars and soldiers
that became known as the "Standard Size" in the industry.
1/35 Tamiya takes the credit for this. Tamiya's second plastic model kit produced, and first
tank, was a Panther. The Panther was selected as it was easy to mould due to its linear
lines and as it was motorised, was made to accommodate two B-type batteries. Compa-
ny chairman Shunsaku Tamiya explains the rest:
"After the success of the Panther, I thought it would be a good idea for us to produce other tanks from different countries in the same scale. I measured the Panther and it turned out to be about 1/35 of the size of the original. This size had been chosen simply because it would accommodate a couple of B-type batteries. Tamiya's 1/35 series tanks eventually got to be known around the world, but this is the slightly haphazard origin of their rather awkward scale".
1/48 Because of the emphasis on play value, the scale of pre-World War II O gauge trains
varied. The Märklin specifications called for 1:43.5 scale. However, many designs were
1:48 scale and in the United States 'O gauge' is defined as 1/48 and is a convenient
scale for modelling using the imperial system as a quarter-inch equals one foot.1/48 is a
common dollhouse scale allowing more options for buildings, figures and accessories.
1/72 Another easy scale for modelling using the imperial system as one sixth of an inch repre-
sents one foot (or 1 inch to 6 feet). This scale originated with the 'Skybirds' and 'Frog
Penguin' aircraft model ranges produced in the United Kingdom during the 1930s and
was subsequently used for aircraft recognition models by the Allies during WW2. Many
manufacturers in the past, particularly in the UK, produced items to 1:76 and labelled the
packaging as being 1:72 because the scales were historically considered to be close. An
example is Airfix's and Matchbox's series of vehicle kits to 1:76, which were eventually re
-issued with labelling indicating a scale of 1:72. 1:76 still exists, but it is now considered
to be a war gaming scale.
Origin of Scales (Thanks Wayne Nelson)
Page 4
AMMS Brisbane News Volume 11, Issue 9
Items for Sale (Thanks Ian Cousens)
Page 5
Volume 11, Issue 9 AMMS Brisbane News
Calibre/Item: Replica Make: MG 42 Action: Replica Serial No: 0000000 Condition: Excellent Price: $2400
Calibre/Item: Emplacement Make: Bofors Model: Mk III 1942 40mm Action: Blank Serial No: L2039 Condition: Very Good Price: $22000
WW2 Interesting Stuff (1941) (Thanks Wayne Nelson)
Page 6
AMMS Brisbane News Volume 11, Issue 9
Last Execution in the Tower of London (1941).
This historic even occurred on August 14, 1941. German spy, Josef Jakobs, was executed while seated tied to a chair, by an eight man firing squad from the Scots Guards. The white lint target patch placed over the area of his heart bore five bullet holes from the eight shots fired. Jakobs had parachuted into Britain on January 31, 1941, and broke his leg on landing. He lay all night in a field until his cries for help were heard next morning. He is buried in an unmarked grave in St. Mary's Roman Catholic Cemetery at Kensal Green, London. (The chair on which Jacobs sat during his execution is now on display in the Royal Armouries museum in Leeds.)
Circumcision (1941) Many Jewish lives were saved by an anti-circumcision operation performed by some caring doctors. Dr. Josef
Jaksy, a Czechoslovakian urologist, made a small incision on the patients penis and then issued a certificate that
stated that they had recently been circumcised for purely medical reasons. Dr. Feliks Kanabus, a Polish surgeon,
with the help of two other doctors, pooled their knowledge and performed around 140 operations by attaching skin
from other parts of the body to the penis in order to hide the circumcision.
Mussolini Jnr. Plane Crash (1941) The son of Italy's dictator, Benito Mussolini, was killed in an air crash on August 7, 1941. Twenty-three year old Bruno, second son of the Fascist leader, died when the four-engine bomber he was testing, crashed near San Guisto Airport at Pisa. Three of the crew were killed and five injured. Mussolini flew at once to the Santa Chiara Hospital and sat beside his son's body for hours before talking to the five wounded survivors. At 17, Bruno became the youngest pilot in Italy and acquitted himself on bombing missions during Italy's attack on Ethiopia.
Lucky Hit (1941) During the attack on Pearl Harbor, a Hawaiian DC-3 airliner, coming in to land, was hit by a Japanese tracer bullet and set on fire. A minute later, the plane was hit by another bullet which hit the valve of a fire extinguisher, thus putting out the fire!
First Act (1941) The first plane shot down in the Pacific War was a British Catalina flying boat of RAF 205 Squadron. Flying out of its Kota Bharu base in Malaya, together with a Lockheed Hudson of the Royal Australian Air Force, they spotted the Japanese invasion fleet heading for the Malayan coast on the afternoon of December 6, 1941. Venturing too close, the Catalina was shot down.
P.O.W Escape Attempt from Britain (1941) During the war, no German prisoner of war escaped from Britain. Many believe that Franz von Werra was the most notable escapee but von Werra made his escape in Canada, where he was sent as a P.O.W. (In Canada there were twenty-one Prisoner-Of-War camps set up during World War II.)
The most audacious attempt was made by Lt. Heinz Schnabel and Oblt. Harry Wappler on November 24, 1941. The two Luftwaffe officers were prisoners in Camp No.15 near Penrith, Northumbria (formally the Shap Wells Ho-tel). Forging papers that identified them as two Dutch officers serving in the RAF, they made their way to the RAF airfield at Kingstown near Carlisle. Without difficulty they entered the station and with the help of a ground me-chanic started the engine of a Miles Magister, of which there were fifty parked around the airfield. Taking off, they headed for the sea and Holland, a distance of some 365 miles. Over the North Sea they realized they could not make it (the maximum range of a Magister was 367 miles on full tanks). Rather reluctantly they decided to turn back and landed in a field about five miles north of Great Yarmouth. Back at Camp No. 15 again, the two daring escapees were sentenced to 28 days solitary confinement.
Oldie but Goodie
Page 7
Volume 11, Issue 9 AMMS Brisbane News
Recently, I gave up on a kit which had been taking far too long and wasn’t going how I
had hoped, and looked around the stash for another to build. My eye fell on the Acade-
my M10 Achilles, released in about 2001, and a resident of the stash for almost that
long.
I thought “I’ll do something unusual and build it out of the box”. Yeah, right. When I
opened the box it was to find that it contained a Jordio Rubio 17 pounder barrel, an Edu-
ard etched set, a packet of AFV Club turned brass 17 pounder shells, and a stowage set.
Fortunately, I had saved several magazine articles over the years, and they were invalu-
able in pointing me towards all the minor changes I would need to make.
In addition, some time ago I bought from Ron a copy of the Armour Photo Gallery book
on the M10 Achilles, which has a very detailed coverage of a Danish vehicle which came
to the Danes from the Canadian Army. Construction starts with the suspension, which is
very similar to a DML Sherman, and needs the same changes, i.e. bolts on the track
skids and four holes bored in the bogey for when the return roller is mounted on the oth-
er side.
Tracks were another question. The kit includes a set of rubber band “Double I” tracks,
but extensive review of Canadian M10 Achilles showed that these were in fact very rare,
and that T54 tracks were in fact the most commonly used. I had a scratch through the
stash and found a DML M4A2 PTO, which has two sets of tracks, both T54, one with
duckbills and one without. The set without has now been sacrificed. I found that the
Academy sprocket didn’t fit the DML track as well as the DML one, but all that needed to
be done was to grind the sprocket teeth down to a narrower profile so they fitted the
gaps in the tracks better.
The interior is very complete, and the Eduard set added most of the missing bits. A word
about the Eduard etched set here—it contains mostly bits which benefit by being re-
placed by etch, and when finished, there aren’t still 500 pieces left over. The biggest
problem with the interior is that the shell stowage is set up for US 76mm ammunition,
which was stored in tubes, whereas the 17 pounder shells were stored “bare”, necessi-
tating the construction of completely new racks.
After a few days of serious head scratching, and many splinters later, I came up with a
brass template which gave me the centres for the hole required in the racks, which I then
drilled in a piece of 2mm plasticard using a drill press. Note—if you go this way, cut the
brackets out of the sheet after drilling the holes, otherwise the drill will rip through the
side of the piece of plastic.
There are a few bits and pieces which need to be added internally, such as a No. 19 ra-
dio, electrical cutoff switch box on the floor, and some additional small stowage boxes. In
the turret, the racks for the six shells are provided by Eduard, and some additional boxes
around the interior of the turret came from a defunct (i.e. I stuffed it up) DML 25 pounder,
as they are exactly the boxes and cases required.
Externally, there isn’t much to add, but the barrel was another issue. The base of the
Jordi Rubio barrel was too big to fit through the Academy mantlet, albeit spot on for
length. I ended up carving out the hole in the mantlet until it was big enough then puttied
it up.
To be continued next month.
Eagles and Turkeys (Cont’d from Page 1)
Page 8
AMMS Brisbane News Volume 11, Issue 9
Snippets
With more and more manufacturers popping up should we avoid companies that have
dropped the ball, and reward companies that strive for quality with each and every re-
lease? Or just not buy the proverbial lemons from certain manufacturers in the hope of
sending a loud and deliberate signal that as consumers we won’t put up with that non-
sensical behaviour which smacks of contemptible and deliberate ethical and moral cor-
rosion.
Do we dare push for an independent international model consumer consortium (let’s
call it the IIMCC) to review each and every release so that all consumers can make an
informed decision on whether to buy a new release product or not. Just imagine an
independent arbitrary body sifting through all releases and providing a “rate or hate”
review. Another first world problem solved!
Yeah okay perhaps that’s pushing it too far the other way seeing as we are really only
talking about a hobby and leisure activity but we should be more discerning, and we
should make more noise, and we should not line the pockets of companies that set out
to deceive us, the global model consumers! And I can hear the howls of objection al-
ready, with “we already have online reviews” and the faithful old chestnut “are we not
modellers” together with “nobody is forcing you to buy it”! Indeed all very valid points
but I say why should we have to be subjected to mischievous manufacturing and ques-
tionable advertising and marketing at all in this day and age? It simply isn’t acceptable!
Unfortunately, as we know, the vast majority of reviews gloss over faults and promote
the product favourably because the reviewer got the kit for free and wants to continue
to receive freebies. You will find that very few are objective enough to give a 100%
unbiased review. And sometimes we just want to buy and build a model that doesn’t
require hours and hours of delicate corrective surgery and many nights in the intensive
care unit hoping that it doesn’t end up as land fill. And sure nobody forces us to buy
any kit but if we have taken a review on face value and bought a substandard kit it sure
does leave a bad taste in one’s mouth!
In my opinion more needs to be done to identify lemons and actively publish the infor-
mation online collectively as a trustworthy one-stop global model kit review source. It is
completely unacceptable to allow companies to release products with falsely advertised
tags like highly accurate when they are not and they should not believe for one second
that that is an acceptable practice that will reward them with sales.
We need to verbally and financially support the companies that pass the sniff test and
provide modellers the best kits for the best value, and be vocal about what is accepta-
ble and what is not, what we like and what we don’t. And we must let the manufactur-
ers know - now!
Until next time, happy modelling!
Regards,
No doubt there were
those who were less
than happy with the
move by QMHE from
Windsor to Redbank.
However, one thing can-
not be denied—in 2014,
QMHE made a nett loss
of $980. In 2015, QMHE
made a profit of just
short of $9,000!
Militaria Snippet
Regarding WW2 ma-
chine guns:
1. British and Rus-
sian heavy ma-
chine guns were
based on the
Maxim gun, and
fed from the right,
unlike most other
machine guns,
which fed from
the left.
2. British Vickers
machine guns
used canvas
belts.
3. The German
MG34 and 42
used link belts.
The empty car-
tridge cases
dropped out the
bottom of the gun,
while the empty
belt, which did
not disintegrate,
fed out the right
side. Ever seen
that modelled?
Meets first Saturday of every month at
Loganlea Community Centre, Timms Street,
Loganlea, between 11:30am and 4:00pm
Contributions to the newsletter are always
welcome. Please email contributions to the
editor at [email protected]
A M M S B R I S B A N E
AMMS Brisbane is on
the Web at
www.ammsbrisbane.co
Above and below—some new releases as shown on the PMMS Web-
site.