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 gncw@bigpond.com

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.