The Tamiya late G model tank came with a screw and nut to hold the
turret elevation parts together.
that extra strength has never been needed before in any tank I have ever
How much would metal barrels add to the cost of a kit? I would rather
have a metal barrel added to a kit rather then them adding a screw that
is not necessary.
they seem to be adding PE, mesh for screens, etc these days.
Why not add the most obvious detail so we don't have any barrels with
I think you'll find that the hardware is there so that it's easier for you
to adjust the tension on the truunions of the gun, to prevent the dreaded
'Gunner's Droop', rather than for the added expense or complication.
They've used the same system in their Challenger kit and probably in others.
It's why some of us call it modeling, rather than assembling. None of my
model barrels have seams. Aftermarket parts, like metal barrels, only
make sense when the kit part has a REAL flaw, like the wrong size/shape.
If you can't deal with the rather simple issue of seams, then you might
want to reconsider how you approach the hobby.
Revell of Germany includes a big huge aluminum barrel in their 1/35 scale
PanzerHaubitze 2000 (modern W.German 155mm howitzer). The barrel is about the
size of one of those souvenir baseball bats. I got my kit via a Model Expo 50%
off sale, so I seem to recall that kit running for around $30-35 full price (I
could be wrong though).
Modern US armor at
The average barrel replacement will add about $8-25 to a model, based on
source, material and quality. They make sense as noted if you can't smooth the
barrel yourself (HINT -- get a Flexi-File!) or the barrel is noticably wrong
(e.g. Eastern Express 45mm guns are not correctly proportioned, with one
section being about 4mm too long.)
I have started using the Eduard replacement barrels. If you haven't seen one
yet, they are well worth it.
I especially like the fact that the muzzle brakes are machined, instead of
cast lead like the Rubio barrels.
No. You're wrong. Fun is an accidental byproduct at best. It's important
to be accurate, and neat, and uncompromising, and to make sure everyone
knows it, so that the historical record is not compromised by
misrepresentations of fact as depicted in your three-dimensional image
of the past.
No. You're wrong, to the extent that you believe anyone can be truly
happy with a major inaccuracy, or with purchasing something ready off
the shelf when they could spend endless hours creating exactly the same
effect themselves out of less-than-optimum components. Besides, the idea
is total hobby hours per dollar spent as much as it is the final result.
Yes. You're absolutely right. You don't have any RLM 71? No prob. U.S.
Olive Drab mixed with NATO Tri-black will look just fine, and how many
guys are going to hold up a color fan deck to your model to check it,
especially if you just put it on the mantel? Don't know exactly what the
cockpit looks like? Well, rudder pedals, control column, instrument
panel, seat with belts--that ought to do it, and who's to know, besides
the three or four folks on rms who are anal enough to computerise all
There are probably other variations on the above argument themes.
Sometimes I think it's durn cool to take a pile of manure-resembling
bits and make it into what it's purported to depict. Other times, I'd
rather spend some bucks to buy a plug'n'play rather than hack on kit
imperfections. For me, that's where the fun of the hobby is--doing it my
way, just like your sig says, and that varies a lot, from one situation
to the next.
who is anal enough to computerise his references