1/48 scale Treadheads

That is good news. Sherman, Hetzer, Stug III, it's all good. Cheers,
The Keeper (of too much crap!)
Reply to
Keeper
Loading thread data ...
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 scale?
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. Cheers,
The Keeper (of too much crap!)
Reply to
Keeper
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.
Reply to
Ron
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.
Dan
Reply to
DNSH
Besides jeeps and kubels you'd have flak vehicles, troop vehicles and quite often forward airfields had some armor as security.
Reply to
Ron
Ron wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@rcn.com:
I imagine the forward US/UK fields used for close support aircraft woul;d have M-16s around.
Reply to
Gray Ghost
As well as recover vehicles, "obsolete" tanks are possible and just maybe some self propelled arty might be around.
Reply to
Ron
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. See here:
formatting link
And here:
formatting link
Maybe you should do a little research instead of assuming someone is wrong because you think they are wrong.
Dan
Reply to
dnsh
Break is not correct just because some semiliterate buffoon spelled it that way on a website. The only correct spelling in this usage is brake.
Reply to
Ron
recoil.
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.
Dan
Reply to
dnsh
"Ron" wrote
How true.
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.
KL

Reply to
Kurt Laughlin
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.
Dan
Reply to
dnsh
Kurt is one of the last people on here that I would refer to as 'dimwitted'.
'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
formatting link
, about 2/3 of the way down the page for a brief discussion of homophones. Also see example 9 at
formatting link
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...
Indeed.
Reply to
Al Superczynski
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Could we go back to politics. At least it was interesting.
Reply to
Gray Ghost
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.
Reply to
Ron
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.
Reply to
Ron
OK Al, your turn to come with papertowels and wipe the coffee off my screen.
Al Superczynski wrote:
Reply to
Ron
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 you're not.
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.
Dan
Reply to
dnsh
Ok, so ya all are so big on clips, does anyone have any for a Model 8 Remington for the .30 Rem. cartridge ?? (also known as 30 30 Rimless)
I have been looking for a few years, and no joy :(
TIA
Reply to
AM
Then two more won't bother you..litterboxes not cats, we're keeping them.....;)
Reply to
Ron

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.