Kettenkraftrads, Kubelwagens, Jeeps all habitated airfields, maybe even a
schwimvagen too. A Sherman passing a crashed Me-109 or a Tiger/Hanomag
examining a wrecked P-51 isn't much of a stretch. Use your imagination. Not to
mention I'd just like my collection to all be the same scale!
Most of us know the origins of 1/72 scale; something to the effect of visual
picture of the proper distance to open up with your fifty. Ever wonder why the
popular scales got to be what they are? I mean why wasnt' everything in 1/48
My theory is that 1/25 for cars, 1/48 for A/C, and 1/35 for armour got to be
that way because they all fit comfortably in the human hand.
The Keeper (of too much crap!)
1/48 was a common architectural scale for models of buildings and that's
why it became popular. 1/35 was due to Tamiya copying some old Monogram
1/32 armor (change scale and it's harder to prove a ripoff) and Tamiya
then flooded the market with releases.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. Rather, how many of the same allied/axis tank
examining an axis/allied aircraft could/would you want to do? Maybe one, in
the vein as mentioned? I never said the Kubels and Jeeps etc. didn't make
sense, because that was actually a well thought out idea. I still just don't
see the point of 1/48 armor. I see the upgrade track sets are about to be
released. Next will be the interiors and then the loads of etched brass.
Putting 1/48 smack dab right where 1/35 scale is, but at prices only
fractionally less expensive. No lack of iomagination, just a lack of interest.
It is correct and not a matter of covering up poor spelling. Just as
"brake" means to slow down the recoil, "break" means to redirect or
interupt the flow of the propulsion gases, also reducing the recoil.
Maybe you should do a little research instead of assuming someone is
wrong because you think they are wrong.
Per the dictionary: "an abrupt, significant, or noteworthy change or
interruption in a continuous process"
Thus describing the action and purpose accurately. All those
manufacturers marketing their products that way must be really stupid
compared to you, huh? I guess you have first hand knowledge about being
a semiliterate buffoon. This group does get tiresome.
BTW, I did check the always infallible internet before posting and also saw
these - and other - abominations to the English language. What amazes me is
that someone would think that simply because a WEBSITE was created with an
error, it's proof that the error is in fact correct.
I also checked REAL documents, such as:
War Department Modification Work Order MWO ORD C64-W1, "To provide a muzzle
brake which deflects the muzzle blast. . ."
Ordnance Technical Committee meeting minutes #22058: "muzzle brake"
Ordnance Technical Committee meeting minutes #22948: "76mm guns: Project to
Investigate Requirement for Muzzle Brakes when Mounted in Tanks"
Ordnance Technical Committee meeting minutes #24985: "90mm gun mount, M4A1
Designation . . . When a Muzzle Brake is Used"
US Army Technical Manual TM 9-2350-303-10, Howitzer, Medium, Self-Propelled,
155mm, M109A2: "Muzzle Brake"
And on, and on, and on.
It does get tiresome dealing with people who won't admit they're wrong.
BLah, Blah, Blah snipped
You really are dimwitted. I never said "brake" was wrong, just that
there are two accepted ways of spelling it. Not a hard concept to wrap
your limited capacity brain around. Just because the US Government
uses one way doesn't mean the other is automatically wrong. There are
numerous alternative accepted spellings listed in the dictionary, but I
suppose if the US Government (note US and U.S. are both acceptable, but
US is preferred) only spells it one way, then the others simply don't
exist. It is just amazing what waste of typing you are...I'm done.
Kurt is one of the last people on here that I would refer to as
'Break' *is* most certainly wrong in this case. It is a
homophone for 'brake', not a synonym. Moreover, the former is a verb
(describing an action) in the sense you're attempting to use it while
the latter is a noun (naming a thing). See
, about 2/3 of the
way down the page for a brief discussion of homophones. Also see
example 9 at
Perhaps 'homophone' is too hard a concept for some to grasp...
There is no accepted alternative spelling for the noun 'brake'.
You might want to check your nearest mirror...
Yo, dumbass, the dictionary spelling of break (note that the definition
you selected is for a VERB and/or ADVERB) and it's definition do not
apply to the nomenclature (implying a NOUN)of the object in question. It
is a BRAKE (a NOUN). You may produce a break in bread while breaking
bread BUT you do not Apply the BARKES in a car and produce a BREAKING
action, it is a BRAKING action. Now go pound ghoti you illiterate.
Don't you just love the "I read it, therefor it's true" mentality. Of
course they only read a document or two of dubious origin or simply
refer to a similar word in the dictionary as their justification.
I didn't even have to do that, I used to be a "gun nut" and already knew
the correct term. He probably also thinks "clip" is the proper
nomenclature for box magazines because Hollywood always uses the term
and of course it's all over the web. In case you're wondering Dan-
Mausers, Springfields, M-1 Garands and M-14's use clips; M-16's,
M1911's, HiPowers, Glocks and even M-14's use magazines. Can you figure
it out yet Dan? (Note to Kurt, you know he's going to read this and
respond). Hint for Dan...the big boxy thing under the M-14 is a
magazine, the ammunition is sometimes reloaded via clips.
Yep, we'll see if he grasps the phonetic at the end of my most recent
post to him.
Actually Al, you are absolutely correct and for some reason I tripped
over my explanation after my seventh post which correctly states my
position. I read what I wrote in the above post and even I was amazed
that I wrote what I did. I meant alternative words to describe the
same end effect. "Brake" as in slowing down the recoil and "break" as
in breaking the flow of gases resulting in reduction of recoil. Simply
that. To Kurt, I apologize for getting personal, but it was out of
frustration that you immediately assumed that I was covering up
ignorance versus putting forth a position.
Sorry to disappoint you Ron, but my knowledge of weapons is quite
complete as I am a certified armorer, a certified firearms instructor
and the head armorer for the second largest probation department in
California. Ron, you do yourself a serious disservice with your nasty
name calling and lowbrow suggestions. You really come across as a low
class jerk who can't defend his position. I'd like to think your
aren't the ass that you seem to be, but so far you haven't shown that
I said I wouldn't respond to this thread anymore, but I felt I owed
Kurt an apology, and I wanted to acknowledge that I agreed with Al. I
also wanted to restate my position as previously stated before I got
off track. Agree or disagree, it really wasn't worth this much
discussion. The discussion started out about 1/48 scale armor and
after saying I didn't see the point in it, I promptly went out and
picked up the Tamiya 1/48 DAK Kubelwagen. Very nice kit with a great
figure that would look good next to a Bf-109.