Fishwelding

The standard complaint about web reviews is that "they're all shills." Some undoubtedly are, but they stand out, sounding like advertising copy: "I enjoy the tender, juicy Chipotle-Fiesta Barbecue Chicken Sandwich, a side of crispy fries, and a icy drink of my choice, all for just $7.99!" On the other hand, I've been amazed at how reasonable reviews tend to reflect the experience at places I've gone to, both for food and hotels. This includes very good aspects, and even a few nitpicks (that I may or may not have cared about). Most often, when I want greasy, heart-attack-inducing food,

USMC Harrier fans, this one is for you: Being a Cold War buff, I'm interested to build a Monogram's AV-8B as a late 1980's machine. I have a SuperScale Decals sheet (EP48282) that depicts an Operation Desert Storm (Gulf War I, 1991) VMA-231 jet in a two-tone gray/blue gray scheme. Would it be (mostly) accurate to use these markings on an earlier gray/green VMA-231 Harrier? The few VMA-231 images I found from the late 80's seem to suggest this is possible, although I might need to choose non-italicized letters for the tail codes. Any thoughts on this are appreciated.

I don't believe it's a generational thing, or at least that there's a simple "good and bad" comparison to make between young and old. Every age group represented here (and I suspect we average very much over 35, given the state of plastic modeling) has been the subject of bitter complaint by elders. In the USA, Baby boomers, particularly came in for a lot of flak from the World War II generation. Pick up any newspaper's op-ed page from about 1969 or 1971, and you'll see what I mean. My vote is that fast food service is lousy because of low pay and lack of benefits. My opinion isn't wort

A newish book to read on the subject is Eric Schlosser's Command and Control. He describes Chrome Dome, as well as several accidents involving nuclear weapons, including a crash at Thule. Schlosser's book can be an annoying read because he jumps back and forth between a general history of the nuclear arms race and a journalistic blow-by-blow of the catastrophic loss of a Titan II missile in Arkansas in the early 1980s. But Schlosser did compile stuff from a lot of published works, as well as primary sources, including many FOIA finds.

I'm interested in locating decent, large-scale kits of pre-20th century artillery. I figured it deserved its own reference thread, although it's debatable whether that should be here, in "Armor," or over in "figures." Anyway, what I've found so far is: Historex made guns, limbers, caissons, and other hardware in 1/30th/54mm for Napoleonic War troops. I have a Gribeauval kit. But I don't know if they made British-pattern guns, or other nations' pieces either. I got my kit a year or two ago, and I don't see them come around on Ebay much any longer. For those of us in the 'states, finding

The guy hasn't even gotten his coat off yet, and then the demands pile on... :rolleyes:/> Forget all that Cold War olive drab! ...we need a 1/12th scale Stutz Bearcat! :woot.gif:/>

Sorry for the belated reply. Busy at work. Anyway, I plan to refinish the parts in a chrome-like finish, probably Alclad. I'm really looking to discover whether that barrier coat under the original chrome will interfere with subsequent coats of paint, of any kind. I'll run some experiments on sprue, and see what happens. Thanks!

In the past, I used bleach to remove chrome from model car parts. After that, I used Scalecoat's paint remover to strip the glossy undercoat the kitmaker put on the plastic, presumably to act as a base for the chrome. The latter task was a lot more work than taking the chrome off. Recently I've been reading or watching tutorials on stripping chrome, to see what people say about removing that undercoat. Some folks remove it with various chemicals (for example, oven cleaner) while others suggest just priming over it. What do folks here think? Do they find that chrome-bearing undercoat c

I moved away from the area a few years ago, but that place was may mainstay since I started building models as a kid. It's a shame, but I can't say I'm surprised. I felt that the last owner put a lot of time in at that place, and more than earned his retirement. Whenever I was back to visit my folks, I always stopped in and spent some money. Great people, great store. Rkic, I think you make a good point. Niche products are bigger than ever. I deal with millennial college students everyday, and contrary to the stereotype, they're not always plugged into electronics, and they love, love

Given the diorama potential of 1/700 scale ships generally, it seems a logical next step for plastic kit makers who are steadily building out catalogs of the war's ships in this scale. I think at least one set of kits is available in plastic for the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Inherited my father's Dinkys (Dinkies?), and they have had a strong influence on my model-building choices. How they originally reached the United States, I don't know, but those poor toys got a lot of mileage, and it shows. I've built Tamiya's old Quad gun tractor and 25lb field gun multiple times, due to having the dinky version to play with as a little kid. (The Tamiya variety is a Canadian Ford, whereas I suspect the Dinky was a Morris tractor?) The day a 1/35 scale Saracen appears, I'm building it immediately. The recent Dragon Saladin makes me think it's in the works.

Most interesting, gents! The four sidewinders are an intriguing possibility; a Harrier BARCAP configuration?

Thank you for the quick and knowledgeable reply! If I go with LAU-10s, I'll leave the caps off and do something to add more prominent rockets. On the other hand, LanceB, I'm intrigued that you mentioned LAU-3s. I have a ton of those in my ordnance box, and might like to add them instead, just to use some up. Per your reply in another recent thread, I'm considering four Mk 81s or 82s (Snakeeye) on 3/5 TERs, with LAU-3s on 2/6. Were AV-8Bs able to carry LAU-3s on stations 1 and 7, too? Also, did you guys ever use those twin ejector racks sometimes seen on F/A-18s? Thanks again, Mark G.

I'm interested in loading a 1/48 early AV-8B (think Revell-Monogram, 1989-1992 era) with LAU-10s. Should I attach the aerodynamic caps to the ends of the launchers? Is this purely optional or is there a fairly consistent practice with these? Thanks!

So gazing at my stash, I note that I've accumulated several of Monogram's old World War II big plane kits: B-29, B-24, C-47, and so forth. I'll probably build these as flying models, to hang from a ceiling. I have a procedure for hanging models, however: they must have gears up, aircrew in visible areas, have a tough varnish, and I usually leave off or reinforce delicate detail, as these planes will undoubtedly require cleaning in future. The trouble is finding multi-engine aircrew for 1/48 USAAF (or USN/MC), World War II. There's several plastic and resin examples available of guys stan

I think a number close to that is typically cited for black powder armies trying to move through the Eastern American woodlands. Three to four miles a day appears to have been the pace of Gen. Edward Braddock's ill-fated expedition across Pennsylvania in 1755. Gen. John Burgoyne's also-ill-fated army had a similar stride in places, advancing south out of Canada a generation later. Of course, Braddock's men were also pioneering a road for wagon logistics and artillery after them, too. By contrast, both Patriot and British Armies covered about 250 miles in under three weeks through the messy

Thanks for the offer, Cobrahistorian. I'll keep it in mind if questions come up. For the infantry: by the 1980s (or by the present) what does the Army typically expect, in miles (or kilometers) per day, for foot-marching infantry? In military history, this typically ranges between about 12-20 miles per day depending on conditions, and the practices of the particular army. (The Romans, for example, in hostile country anticipated spending time each day building a fortified camp).

I suppose Kpz. 70 fans can be disappointed if this kit doesn't strictly adhere to one prototype or another. For my part, I'm unconcerned with that because my build(s) will be speculative: what does the thing look like in different stages of a speculative service life? That is, what would Kpz. 70 look like by 1988, had the Bundeswehr adopted it? This gives me room to maneuver.

While looking for stuff on 20th TFW F-111Es, I happened upon an interesting article in Air Force Magazine concerning Victor Alert, USAFE's nuclear mission. The possibility of building planes in this role intrigues me. I eyed an F-100 and F-84F in my stash as early candidates, and am considering other possibilities. The author quotes Buzz Aldrin as saying that F-100s carried a single bomb on the left pylon, but I'd be interested to know more details about the loadout of these birds. I imagine a B 28 would work for the warload, but the F-100 had several gas tank options, and I wonder what

I second that. Ikar, awesome pics!

I tend to think this is pretty important. The European Tornado, and even the U.S. F-15 family had long service lives in several air forces, are pleasing to many eyes, and are very capable aircraft, but don't seem to get quite as much attention as the F-4. But the United States got lots of war-mileage out of its F-4 investment, to say nothing of the Israelis.

So these were organic to infantry units. Very helpful, guys. I'm guessing they were probably finished in MERDC paint schemes. When you say "leg infantry," 11-bee, I'm curious: how exactly were you guys (in the 1980s) expected to get around the battlefield? My impression was that the United States Army was entirely motorized and possibly mechanized by 1960 at the latest. So that with the exception, perhaps, of air-dropped paratroopers, nobody seriously expected to march around on foot unless things went badly in a shooting war (as happened in Korea), or the nature of the terrain and enem

This is one of the reasons that era is so fascinating to me. Typically, it seems, we see twentieth century (and modern) armies deployed to sparsely settled, rural, or frankly poverty-stricken (though frequently resource-rich) areas of the world. But in the 1980s NATO struggled to plan and train to fight amidst one of the wealthiest (per capita) societies on Earth, with dense automobile traffic over high-quality roads, dense urban and suburban settlements, traffic lights, highly developed utility systems, and so forth. I, too, spent much of my childhood in a station wagon. Also seems to

Big thanks for the "M825" search term! I also searched Defenseimagery.mil for "M151" and found some Tow-equipped Mutts from the 1980s, including some vehicles with infantry divisions in Korea. Another set shows a recoilless rifle as late as 1984, but the caption declares that it was used for an "ammunition stockpile reliability test" at the Tropic Test Center. I was interested to see that recoilless rifles were still in the U.S. arsenal, anywhere, at that late date. I'd be interested to know how late they were fielded in regular, Nat Guard, or reservist combat arms. "A member of Com

I'm considering possibly doing a display of U.S. or NATO light anti tank elements during the Cold War, including the various infantry and light mobile AT systems fielded in expectation of a war against Warsaw Pact mechanized forces. I'm having difficulty finding reference material on the M151A2 TOW vehicles. Odds and ends around the internet indicate they were used by airborne infantry divisions, and possibly the Marines. Gino Quintiliani's quite comprehensive M151 article on Armorama supplies a valuable photograph (I think Marines?) of this system in U.S. service. I'd like to find more ph