This is just our usual how-did-we-do straw poll on the current issue. As usual, nothing fancy, nothing scientific–just tell us from the gut which article you liked best. Don’t over-analyze because on a multiple-choice test, the answer that comes to mind first is usually the right one.
If you’d like to make comments, feel free to let 'em rip below.
I really enjoyed all the articles, the one on Gabby’s plane was simply the best! Kudos the modeler who did such a superb job!
See comments below in Rant thread…
Didn’t like it! Sorry! Every now then FSM is REALLY REALLY GOOD, like the one that delved into using Future Acrlic floor polish and where to get it around the world! That article alone was worth paying for! But this issue was not, Why? Simple, I want to read about models and model making! I don’t want to read about D-Day, at least not in FSM. That’s not what I pay for. While their were other articles on modeling, I feel cheated because so many pages are devoted to military history. I also get a british magazine, “Military in scale” and even that magazine has little in the way of historical reading. Rather it has lot’s of pictures and even reference photo’s of modelling subjects. Anyway, that’s my opinion.
John Coppola, Australia
Considering I’ll be tackling it for the first time soon on my Tempest-- I liked the article on the invasion stripes…but it was all good. Course, I finished it in one day after a 2 month break-- so maybe 100 more pages would be better [;)]
The historical article on the invasion was a masterpiece. There are too many people that have no idea about thesecond world war and what it meant to the world. Your story can be used as an insperation for dioranas, more realistic model builds and most of all educating us. Picking the winner this month was no easy task.
Thanks,
Richard
I loved this issue! My passion has been the Second World War and it’s weapons. The article covering a Gabby Gabreski P-47 was right on! Since I had the honor of meeting him and talking ‘shop’, I feel a special bond with this piece. I was getting ready to build one myself and this will be a major source of info. Thanks!
Just a comment about the response by ‘coppola’; Modeling acurately is reading and researching history. I don’t tackle any project without some sort of research on what I am building. Model building and history go hand in hand.
I agree that building and history go hand in hand, but when I purchase a modeling magazine, I don’t expect to get a history lesson any more than I expect an article on building a diorama in a history book on the invasion of some country.
There are plenty of historical researchers out there, I don’t think my modeling mag has to or should try to compete with them. I’m not opposed to a very brief history behind the model type story, but lets keep the two seperate as much as possible. Tell me more on how to achieve a desired paint job or lighting effect.
Don [alien]
I didn’t get the unusal satisfied feeling with this issue sorry. It was promoted as a D-Day issue and of course to do justice to that occassion would have required a huge issue or several issues. I was hoping we might have some figure modelling (D-Day was really about people) or some models of the invasion craft, or a Mulberry harbour diorama or…). The Gabby P47 review (excellent model though it is) really had nothing to do with D-Day (invasion strips hardly qualify it) so could have been left out and replaced with something else that was more relevant. I for one did enjoy the historic summary but our newspapers have all had something similar over the last weekend anyway. Each to his/her own but I think the July issue was just average. Roll on the next…
I enjoyed this issue very much. Although I received it only this morning, I have spent a good three hours reading through most of the major articles.
My only suggestion revolves around the fact that I would have liked to have seen all of the D-Day information before D-Day. Perhaps the May issue would have been better?
As usual, my favorite article was the Armor D-Day round-up, but then I’m biased toward armor articles. The historical article on D-Day - although very nice - lacked some comprehensiveness and contained a few errors that should have been noticed prior to publication.
All-in-all, another very good publication!
Once again I find an article coming out addressing the very project I’m working on. In this case the painting of Invasion stripes. Just in time for the 60th anniversary, I finished up the 1/48th Monogram C-47 in full D-Day stripes. If only I had waited a little longer to get those tips! * I used a vernier caliper to check/gauge my stripes as I masked/painted them, tedious![banghead]
I’ll be sure to review those tips for a future project, such as a little 1/72 P-51 in either Yeager or Anderson’s markings.[:D]
Overall good show, should I hold off on the P-38 lightning I’m working on to see what’s next?[(-D]
I completely agree with Coppola and disagree with the ipms number person! Modeling is supposed to be fun! People wonder why kids are not too interested in the hobby is because they are intimidated by that thinking. they don’t want to have to reseach a model to be able to put it together, they just want that sense of accomplishment. If you want to paint a Tiger II Pink go for it. Besides the majority are not in for the contests.
All of the articles were great, but I was drawn to the Gabreski P-47 article a little more than the others. It remind’s me of a 1/48 I built several years ago with a red cowling, but a different camo scheme. The article on the stripes was really good also. Very informative. You can never get too much information about WWII, and the pics are a great help. THANK YOU!!!
The historical article on the invasion was a masterpiece. But this magazine is not a historical document, but a magazine encouraging and improving peoples skill to build models. This space could be better used for How to articles, or photo’s from finished models. That does not mean that information of how to apply invasion stripes is usefull and good for people building invasion models.
I was inspired by the Gabreski P-47 build. I enjoy Fine Scale Modeler but I am dissapointed in those issues that devote pages to historical reviews and less to models or related techniques. Historical background is fine within the context of an actual model build or technique related article. Historical reviews requiring pages of text is not as interesting as the Reader Gallery. I purchase texts or access the internet for required historical background information.
I liked the invasion stripes article. I hope to use that technique on an old Monogram C-47, one day. Keep up the good work! Best regards, Dave
Gee Whiz, I guess you can’t please all of the people all of the time. Oh well, I still liked the DUKW article. The P-47 Article was very good on a very interesting subject, the model was a great job! Since there was some more reading involved than usual, it will occupy more space on my reading/throne room shelf a little longer, not neccesarily a bad thing.[:D]
I was a little bummed about the Trumpeter Model of the P 38, I had hoped for better for the money involved. I guess I will just have to go buy 3 or 4 Revell P-38 J’s and kitbash my way to P-38 Nirvana instead![;)]
Jay modelnut4
AKA treadhead 1952
Las Vegas, NV
It just happened that I had started on Italerie’s DuKW a few days before the issue came out. I picked up several things that I added to my build including scratch built wheel skirts and filling in the drainage slots
According to a recent O’Reilly program, 63% of Americans interviewed in a current Gallop Poll had no idea who fought in World War II. Armed with this information, it’s somewhat difficult to oppose FSM’s editor’s choice to include a major article on D-Day in their magazine.
Personally, I thoroughly enjoy the mini historical articles that have begun appearing recently in the sidebars of the magazine, and I feel that whenever an obscure model is detailed in our publication it’s worthwhile for us to enhance our understanding of the reasons for that model’s prototype’s existence. With understanding comes better modeling. When you understand the historical context for a modeling subject, it’s easier to reproduce it in miniature. You can make modeling decisions that “model” the decisions made by the prototype manufacturers and users. For example, the DUKW article included the information that the skirts on the DUKW were worn during the invasion, while they were removed in subsequent invasions in the Pacific. Perhaps they interfered with prototype operations, like the tank skirts included in most model Shermans and Stuarts, and were removed in the field of combat operations.
While it should be perfectly acceptable for a genXer to paint a Pink Panzer, it should also be acceptable for him to be laughed at by the knowledgeable. Those of us who are “plankholders” in FSM might lament the necessity of devoting valuable space in the magazine to the basics, but we forget that while this may be our hundredth copy of FSM, it is also the first for many others. Besides, everyone can benefit from a new take on something.
Perhaps due to my father’s presence there, I have been a lifelong student of the D-Day invasion. I was surprised by two things in Dr. Guilmartin’s account of D-Day. I always thought that the inventor of the Cullen plow was a sergeant, and I had never considered the possibility that the Allies might use the bomb on Germany.