New Releases you are all worked up about

[ShotMagnet]

They used to, at least for the older Tam kits. On the other hand, there are a lot of figures to be had aftermarket, to include not a few artillery crews.

 

 

Shot

[DougRichards]

They used to, at least for the older Tam kits. On the other hand, there are a lot of figures to be had aftermarket, to include not a few artillery crews.

Shot

I have a few of the old Tamiya kits with crews, useful for some situations. Italieri also had some artillery crew figures. Dragon and Trumpeter have also released some, but these are mainly German (surprise surprise).

 

The other aftermarket figures are generally resin, from Hobbyfan and the like, and quite expensive in comparison to injected figures, the Hobbyfan crew for the 155mm Long Tom costing more than twice as much, by a fair margin, than the kit of the weapon itself.

 

Even so,

 

Companies, understandably, don't produce figures that could be used to crew other companies' weaponry.

 

As for trying to get enough suitable figures to properly give an impression of an LVT-2 or LVT-4 capabilities is something else.

Edited January 30, 2008 by DougRichards

[ShotMagnet]

Yeah, this is where the 'modeler' aspect comes into play.

 

I dislike doing surgery on figures; it's a lot of tedious work and the whole time I fulminate about how much easier this could be if someone came out with a decent set of (multi-pose, maybe?) crew figs. Still, I try to keep an extensive stock of parts on hand so as to mix and match with a minimal amount of cutting and splicing.

 

 

Shot

[EW]

For those into things Russian, it might be welcome news that Hobby Boss will do the Mig-17 family in 1/48. It might even get Jacques to do another "wingy thingy" no? The Eduard Mig-21's will also be more than welcome IMO. Unfortunately there's no news about Trumpeter's 1/48 Su-24. I actually e-mailed them a couple of weeks ago but (of course) they haven't replied. Let's hope it will be released under Hobby Boss or Kinetics soon. And speaking of this years releases, in general terms, am I the only one on TN that are a bit confused over the amount of 1/24-32 kits? That list is nearly as long as the quarter scale one. I seriously don't understand this. Is there an unmet demand out there for big kits and/or is this just a "fad" that will fade away in a couple of years time, started by one company and the rest feel that they have to make a few 1/32 as well, in order no to lose market shares? My thought is more like "how big is that particular piece of the modeling cake" really? In short do "we" want them bigger now, all of a sudden?

 

 

Cheers

EW

 

http://www.cybermodeler.com/special/2008_acft_scale.shtml

[ShotMagnet]

I think not, regarding 'fad'.

 

Kits are not cheaply manufactured. There has to be a perceived need which can translate readily into profit before someone finds a need to crank out a kit of any sort, and I imagine that the problem is only made worse if the kit is in 32nd/24th scale. I recall reading or hearing somewhere that every part of every kit is supposed to cost the manufacturer something like USD 2000; said manufacturer would (if the figure is even something like accurate) want to be reasonably assured of selling lots and lots of any particular molding before committing pen to paper.

 

For myself, I've always liked the larger kits and I don't think I'm the only one. They really do look the part, and they can steal the table at a modeling show.

 

 

Shot

[Corinthian]

am I the only one on TN that are a bit confused over the amount of 1/24-32 kits? That list is nearly as long as the quarter scale one. I seriously don't understand this.

 

As modern health support systems improve, along with better food production and stable governance, coupled with reduced tensions in the frontiers and a move away from the conscript army to an all-volunteer professional force, the average lifespan of the population to which modelers are included is increasing, thus the market of 14-40 year olds building models 30 years ago have become senior citizens with retirement accounts. This "newer", increasing market of aged modelers, having nothing else to spend their retirement accounts on, instead buy model kits to while away the time until pre-departure and departure stages. However, modern medical technology can only do so much to rectify ailing eyesight and deteriorating hand-and-eye coordination. Thus, model companies have foreseen and met this demand by producing more, large scale models for aging modelers, thereby tapping into these people's rich retirement accounts. Bigger parts means easier assembly for those 65 and up. Bigger parts also mean bigger kits which means higher prices but old people do not mind as it keeps them busy. It's a win-win situation really.

 

[Garth]

Kits are not cheaply manufactured.

 

I don't know about that ... CAD design capabilities plus masters that are first rendered on a 3D printer and then tweaked into the "finished" master plus cheap "throw away" moulds (like those apparently used on the Airfix TSR.2) that are tossed and replaced once they wear out. The result should be a decline (significant decline) in labor hours per kit and the ability to turn out more and different product faster and cheaper.

 

--Garth

[FITZ]

I have seen on other fora (sounds as good as forum or forii) that the main towing vehicle in US service was the deuce and a half. Whilst I can understand that, I would have thought that the 1 and a 1/2 tonner would have been more appropriate, as it was used to tow the 57mm AT gun, of not dissimilar weight. Any comments?

 

But of dissimilar ammunition expenditure. I imagine it took more guys to care and feed a Bofors as well.

[DougRichards]

But of dissimilar ammunition expenditure. I imagine it took more guys to care and feed a Bofors as well.

Thanks for the comments, they use useful, but I also remember reading, somewhere, sometime, that M-16 half tracks sometimes towed Bofors 40mm guns in US service, and these were set up and manned according to prevailing conditions. There was not too much extra space on an M16 for 40mm ammunition, and less for the crew. So there must have also been other trucks to carry the ammo forward.

 

The British also used a fairly small tractor, like a modified Quad (which I still consider to be the prototypre for the HMMVEE - hey, compare the specs) that was smaller than a deuce and a half, for towing bofors.

 

I am not saying that the 21/2 Ton truck was not the main tractor, but maybe was not the only tractor, particularly as 57mm AT guns were left behind after D-Day, leaving the one and a half available as tractors, and the deuce and a half free for other duties.

[ShotMagnet]

I don't know about that ... CAD design capabilities plus masters that are first rendered on a 3D printer and then tweaked...

But it's still not done either pour le sport or on a whim. There has to be a market, something that at least seems like it will promise a decent return on investment.

 

 

Shot

Edited February 17, 2008 by ShotMagnet

[FITZ]

Thanks for the comments, they use useful, but I also remember reading, somewhere, sometime, that M-16 half tracks sometimes towed Bofors 40mm guns in US service, and these were set up and manned according to prevailing conditions. There was not too much extra space on an M16 for 40mm ammunition, and less for the crew. So there must have also been other trucks to carry the ammo forward.

 

If so that was probably to allow the Duece to carry more ammo, maybe a trailer. The crew and ammo certainly could not be accomodated at all in a M-16.