|
|
Forums - News / General |
For General modelling or hobby-related topics that are not covered by any other specific forum. Please keep to topics concerning the hobby. |
| Topics | 2987 |
| Messages | 22307 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument |  |
| Date: | Apr 18, 2006 |
| From: | adam lehmann | |
Paul, I work in a model shop and see the types of customers who come into the shop to buy armour kits. In the greater number of cases, the customer really has no idea what a tank should look like. They mostly have heard catch words like abrams, or tiger, or panzer, and their knowlegde is limited to movies and news reports. It is only a minority of people who seem to have even the slightest inclination of what is "right" or not.
I get asked questions like what country is this tank from (holding a sherman, or worse, a tiger 1) and then the gem of a question "can i put this tank with a humvee?" (holding a sturmtiger). my point is this. The most kits sold in the shop are to people who are almost totally ignorant of what they are buying, let alone how correct it is.
This does not seem to be so in aircraft. Its not as though there isnt reference material available, my shop has most of the concord or osprey series right next to the kits(kind of stuff suitable for one off projects). I offer anyone buying a kit to look at reference material particular to that vehicle. once again, 9 times out of 10 no ones interested. so to me their care factor is not real high as to weather something is at the right angle, 2 degrees out, mishaped, missing or pure fantasy. Its not as tho there arent any modellers who buy there, its just that they nearly always purchase over the net and not from a hobby store, and secondly, they order their reference from overseas with club discounts etc. these people are definitely in the minority.
why would a model producer care too much about the minority ? I mean, if most of your customers are satisfied, why make expensive changes because some rivet counter wants it perfect. That to me is just business sense.
to the masses who are blissfully and apparently willingly ignorant of these imperfections, theres no harm done.
so when does a tank stop becomming a tank? when i google tank i get more results about rain water storage devices (water tanks), fuel cells (gas tanks)and aquairiums (fish tanks)than i do armour. to the layperson, thats when a tank stops becomming a tank.
how does one argue when a sherman stops being a sherman for example? break it down and you get bogged in some specifics.. what type of sherman (m4a1, m4a2e8) etc etc.if it fitted with recovery mast is it still a sherman or is it a recovery vehicle? so when does sherman type X stop being type X ? especially with field mods, turret changes to hulls, different factories producing same variant (apparently) and so on.
If your are in the forces and train for vehicle recognition, tanks are technically determined a type of tank by silhouette. so try to apply the rule you decide upon "when does a tank stop being a tank" next time you encounter a silhouette test.
just some thoughts
Adam |
| |
|
|
 | The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Paul A. Owen - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Marc Brandes - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - David Bridges - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Damon Agretto - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - John F. Steinman - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Alex Hill - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - David Manning - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Eric Scurlock - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Mike Tittel - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Kip Rudge - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Roy A. Schlicht - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Dwayne - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . . . . I'd respectfully....... - Alex Hill - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: I'd respectfully....... - Kip Rudge - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: I'd respectfully....... - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: I'd respectfully....... - Kip Rudge - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: I'd respectfully....... - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Interesting - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - adam lehmann - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Geoff Steer - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Model shop customers - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Model shop customers - Dwayne - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . ....the greed to get the mighty dollar! - Glenn Bartolotti - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - David Bauer - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - frank forster - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Steve Frost - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Steve Frost - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Glibberish [IMG] - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Glibberish - Andrew Herbert - Apr 20, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Glibberish - Paul A. Owen - Apr 20, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Brian J Tears - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Mike Harmon - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Paul - Glenn Bartolotti - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Glenn - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul.... [IMG] - Glenn Bartolotti - Apr 19, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Michael Wawrow - Apr 19, 2006 |
|
|
