Rubicon Models
Rubicon Models => General Discussions => Topic started by: ripley on June 30, 2019, 10:48:28 pm
-
After seeing a new items announcement from ABER , a large photo etch and scale metal barrel company , I would say , hell yes . Among the news release about metal barrels for the usual suspects , Tamiya Tigers , Takom Leopards , etc and brass machine gun ammo for 1/16 scale modelers , was a turned barrel for the 1/56 Italeri KV II (56 L-03 ) . It seems the big after market companies are starting to take notice of our favorite scale . I wonder what other goodies could be released in the future ?
edit - upon further investigation , it seems they have already released a 75mm barrel for the M4 Sherman ( 56 L-01 ) and a short 76mm barrel for the KV kit ( 56 L-02 ) .
-
It seems the big after market companies are starting to take notice of our favorite scale . I wonder what other goodies could be released in the future ?
Being noticed is a good thing in this case. :)
Among my modelling friends, they still prefer 1:35 and 1:48 scale model tanks and vehicles for their none wargaming interests and needs.
While the 1:56 scale can be a good modelling scale, this scale is mostly popular and useful for wargamers. This is only because of the evolution of 28mm gaming figures.
-
It may take time before it becomes an 'accepted' military modeling scale. It's quite close to 1/48 scale, which had the advantage of being an established aircraft modeling scale. I wonder how many military modelers who aren't wargamers will make the jump to a slightly smaller scale.
-
You have to admit that a lot of the new 1/56 kits by both Rubicon and Italeri are more scale model in detail and parts count than the first releases by both companies . I think the real sticking point is most large scale model builders haven't paid much attention to this scale and don't realize what they are missing out on . Only about 3 threads on the Armorama site about 1/56 kits in the last year . I always point out Rubicon's kits to people at the hobby shop I hang out at , and show examples of the built kits in their display cabinet , as well as pictures of my own builds on my phone . Seems to be working as a few have bought Rubicon kits to build for dioramas
-
From my experience of Facebook I will say...
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
At least from a very vocal minority.
Some scale model group members are instantly dismissive of 1/56th as "too small" (despite being happy with 72nd scale) or just being "toys".
They refuse flat out to acknowledge the scales existence.
one group 'The mediocre modelers group' has removed me 3 times without reason just for posting painted Rubicon tanks.
another group 'The modelers critique group' will harass you until you remove posts of 1/56th items (thankfully I just get ignored nowadays).
Unfortunately these loud obnoxious minorities will silence any supporter of the scale.
I still feel Rubicon has a long way to go getting the interest of modelers.
This is made harder by the range being stocked in no model shops I know of and an ever decreasing shelf presence in wargaming stores.
-
I’ve converted a few scale modellers over to Rubicon and 1:56.
Usually the argument is the size and the wargaming scale aspect, but the response later is very positive with the level of detail, speed of assembly and the reduced space they take up.
-
Some scale model group members are instantly dismissive of 1/56th as "too small" (despite being happy with 72nd scale) or just being "toys".
They refuse flat out to acknowledge the scales existence.
one group 'The mediocre modelers group' has removed me 3 times without reason just for posting painted Rubicon tanks.
another group 'The modelers critique group' will harass you until you remove posts of 1/56th items (thankfully I just get ignored nowadays).
That unfortunately is the kind of elitist petty Crap that exist within (some sectors of) the wider modelling community. Modelling is modelling, the scale should only be an issue of preference or convenience - the 1.56 is just for wargaming attitude is frankly pathetic. But , ah well, bollocks to them- their loss, if they don't want to use a range of great models. More available for us! Some people need to grow up or take their heads out of their own arses.
-
I did notice the Wirbelwind in this month's WS&S was very badly assembled, there was a very noticeable gap at one end of the join between the glacis and the nose front.
Not sure how they did not notice it before the photographed it.
-
I can understand the hesitation concerning using 1/56 as a model maker/diorama builder scale. Most manufacturers of 1/56 "people" do not produce true-to-scale figures. They are beefier, so that fragile barrels and bayonets don't break. They are meant for handling because they are designed for gaming.
Which is why I prefer the beefier/bulkier figures, because I am a gamer.
I have yet to pick up any Rubicon kits that use "people" because I worry that while the AT Gun might be fine, I will need to go looking for someone else's crew figures. Because Rubicon make "true" 28mm figures, not the "heroic" sized ones.
I plan to pick up a crewed weapon soon, and with figures in hand, decide if the figures will work for gaming or not. I suspect I will end up with a crewless weapon though.
-
I've mixed and matched Rubicon's , Bolt Action's , various metal & resin figures as well as the PSC 28mm gun crew figures , and for the most part they work well together . Yes Rubicon's are more scale , but people are not all one size . I've got a picture saved somewhere which shows a 6ft 8 inch German soldier and his 5 foot nothing Tommy guard . As long as you use one brands weapons and personal equipment ( helmets usually came in different sizes so use who's looks good on your figure ) you should have no problem . That being said , Warlord have changed the size of the German Mauser rifle from the original late war Heer kit ( small ) to the latest SS plastics ( larger , more heroic ) as well Rubicon gives you both scale and "game " versions of machine guns in some kits . Decide which looks better TO YOU , and use them . Larger scale modelers have been mixing 1/32 and 1/35 together for years , so it does work if all guns are the same size
-
I have yet to pick up any Rubicon kits that use "people" because I worry that while the AT Gun might be fine, I will need to go looking for someone else's crew figures. Because Rubicon make "true" 28mm figures, not the "heroic" sized ones.
I highly recommend picking up some Rubicon Models AT-Guns. You will not be disappointed. Their AT-Guns are so much better than any the of metal AT-Guns out there.
As for crews, well, I can understand your concern. Rubicon Models have mentioned a few times they are still working on perfecting their figure's look. Even though their crew are anatomically correct, I think the crews you get with Rubicon's AT-Guns are still more than usable for gaming needs. Yes, they are more anatomically correct than any other manufactures, and this why I understand your concerns.
The issues I see with Rubicon Models is that they are trying to be too anatomically correct! I wished they were closer in look and style to the Perry Miniatures. Perry Miniatures are for gaming, and as a result the Perry brothers mix in a blend of anatomically correctness with some exaggerated detail and proportions. Used for gaming or modelling, Perry figures work. They do a far better job at this than most other companies including Warlord Games, whose figures tend to be very much "heroic" - over exaggerated proportions for their scale.
Rubicon Models is trying to please both modellers and gamers alike, but let us face the current facts, and that is that 1:56 scale is going to be predominately a gaming scale. As a result, Rubicon Models should keep this in mind. I strongly think that if their figures were closer in appearance (look and style) of Perry Miniatures, this would be better for all at this scale.
-
there is a lot of scale snobbery in modeling as well as gamers almost being the anti christ in some clubs.
i went to a local club meet that i had been a member on and off for over 15 years.
i took along the italeri 1/72 italian front houses made into a farm with some walls and a base ect.
i was asked how i did the stone & render painting so i told them, emulsion house paint and then GW washes, as soon as i mentioned GW they all just seemed uninterested, turned away and wandered off.
bollocks to them i thought and have not gone back since.
-
It's obvious they can't "art". If you're happy with how it looks then you did a good job.
Post pictures.
-
Could have been an "age" thing . I notice a lot of younger guys have a reliance on Brand Name products and have no idea how to use everything and anything you can find around the house or at your local hobby , art supply or hardware store . IRC Vallejo or MIG or somebody is releasing some kind of acrylic weathering pencils ( dirt , grime , rust , etc ) , should go for about $9 each at the LHS . You can get the same type of thing ,in about 50 more colors at the local art shop for about $3 each ! Where would you get yours from ?
Before I got involved with a bunch of fantasy gamer types I had no clue about GW paints , all the bright colors are a little off putting to us WW2 modeler types , but seeing up close what can done with them ,I changed my view of them . If I ever decide to paint fantasy figures , they'll be my go to paints .But I do use their washes regularly , I just wish they had sample sizes of the more colorful washes and inks ( reds , oranges , lime greens ) sort of like the little paint pots you get with the starter Airfix kits . Bit of a bummer to spend $6 or more on a blue wash or ink that doesn't work like you think it would . I end up giving them away ...
-
I love GW paints! First tabletop minis games I got into were GW, and I started getting their paints. Hated it when they changed their paint names. Knew the old colors well, and knew how to get the desired results.
I don't use them for my WWII stuff but that's mostly because I am color blind, and don't trust myself to mix and blend to get the right shades. So I just buy a different line of paints meant for military models and use those.
But I have seen stuff painted using cheap Hobby Lobby/Michaels paints that looked great. I am not a paint snob!
-
I agree with the sentiments expressed here, the quality of your work is not wholly dependant on the cost of your equipment/materials. Though I do use plenty of Mig & AK products, I still have an extensive collection of ancient GW paints which still see regular use - particularly for non-vehicle subjects where their more vibrant 'gamey' colours work well. As one of the 'old guys' I've come to think that with the huge variety of hobby paints now available, it's perhaps not surprising people can get a bit clique-y about what they use, as brands come into, and fall from favour. However this misses the old dictum of 'whatever works'.
I suppose I've wandered from the point of the post though - and if Rubicon continue to produce kits as good as the M4 range and the new Pz. IV's (I await the Pz. III's eagerly) the scale model crowd might eventually be won over - after all, some of us who game also do scale models.
-
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/original/img/tVfqjMIw9hnMYc2aSKipnme9GnY=/0x0/pic4057171.jpg)
-
Just read on the Armorama site , that Value Gear , has quite a few 1/56 scale resin sand bag and stowage sets for both Warlord & Rubicon Shermans , as well as stuff for the M3 / M5 Stuarts . Some sets are made to fit on one specific model , others are more generic in style . They also have generic box / crate / tarp sets which would work with either 1/56 or 1/48 kits . Nice to see the interest in 1/56 kits is expanding into the after market companies
-
I do both wargaming and scale modelling. Can’t say I have seen much growth in interest in 1:56 on the modelling communities like amorama and britmodeller.
1:48 is certain a popular growth area, but that has come from behind and still well behind 1:35 and 1:72.
I like 1:48, it is a sweet spot between size, price and detail, but I’m stuck with 1:35 because when I started there was barely any 1:48 to choose from and although the range has grown now I have a huge stash of 1:35 so a move to 1:48 is not realistic for me.
As for wargaming, I do 15mm, 20mm and 28mm depending on the scale of the order of battle. I love the plastic 28mm vehicles much prefer them over resin/metal. I am currently working on a warlord games 38(t) (italeri I assume) and a Rubicon T-26 1938. I love them, easy to work with a great detail for wargaming models. But I don’t think either would satisfy the scale modeller, too little detail, too few parts and dubious accuracy - I believe the Rubicon T-26 has some fundamental errors on the turret that would attract black marks on a scale review.
But fine for wargaming, you have to treat them for what them are. 28mm, simplified detail, not always accurate but great for the table top. 1:48 accurate and detailed scale models, but use them for wargaming and you’ll be leaving a trail of broken off parts behind its movement.
As for heroic figures and scale creep, this is absolutely true. The 15mm figures I have are closer to 18mm. They are often given exaggerated poses so you can tell what they are on the table from a distance. They are often made chunky so that they don’t break when your over-zealous team mate picks them up.
Cheers,
Nigel
-
Nigel, I agree with everything you just said... well, except maybe for the T-26 turret errors. I have sources that show RM got it right, but I also have sources that show slightly different details, so it depends. I'm pretty sure the T-26 had all kinds of detail adjustments during its production run, and RM probably picked the most common of these.
-
The only "major" thing that RM got wrong about the T-26 is that there is no turret top suitable for the 1936 version.
And that is partially understandable because of how the versions evolved.
The Russians only officially noted three versions: twin turret, single cylindrical turret, and final version with the widened superstructure. But "after the fact" if you examine all of the tweaks done, you can actually group the tanks into more than that:
Model 1931 (twin turrets)
Model 1933 (single cylindrical turret with two side-by-side rectangular hatches)
Model 1936 (single cylindrical turret with one round and one rectangular hatch)
Model 1938 (single conical turret with one round and one rectangular hatch)
Model 1939 (single conical turret, widened superstructure)
And MGs came and went (especially the one located on the rear of the turret), but also the AA MG mount on top. And miscellaneous other tweaks were done, and often those tweaks started on a "former" model but only on some builds, and were considered "standard" by the next build. So there was a lot of minor "transitions" between builds.
Other than the missing Model 1936 turret top piece, all of the other main models can be built with the parts provided. Might need to make a few minor alterations to make the model even closer to reality, but there really was enough variation to support what is provided.