hey Chas at first sight I would agree with you -indeed the diorama "art" tends to attracts the lamest of aftermarket companies (i should do a top 10 of the ugliest/worthless things i've seen in the news till 2006). But here there's certainly something which is interesting with that Bunker: it's been made of WOOD. i strongly believe that in order to get the most realistic stuff in your diorama you should use the closer to the original material possible : say, plaster for bricks, metal for metal, and... wood for wood. here i would interpret this building as being half done, up to us to sand/ destroy the planks in order to get something realistic. remember that the wood drinks the paint, pigments etc in an interesting fashion, and up to the diorama maker to exploit those properties. So ugly, like that it's yes, but for a modeller that actually has a pair of eyes in could be the start of something spectacular.

G'day JBA, Mate, you're always looking that one step ahead... I can only agree with what you have said mate. With some 'beating up' by the modeller, these items would look a lot better. I don't want to go down this path... for fear of reprimand... but I can't shake the fact that these structures would be so easy to make DIY. A bit of dowel, some balsa. They say people pay for convenience, but we are talking 10-20 euro and another 15-20 euro in postage. I could buy a small car for that sort of money... Chas

Again, this is not the place in my opinion, to denigrate the work of companies, on the prices I mean. Cause It's up to everyone to know how he wants to spend his money. Even if I 've always prefered make what i can myself, as you, Chas. I'm agree with JBA, I prefere basic stuff, which can be ugraded by modellers on their ways, than a serial damaged or weathered item, which will be the same in all dios. Just a thought. G'bye. Alex.

If you spend some time on the company's webpage, you'll see a certain number of references to actual structures. Now this signifies that they've spent time on research (using Soviet Field Manuals) so, effectively, they've translated the details into model form. This entails time, effort etc. etc. so they AREN'T 'easy to make' or people would have done them? It's a bit like this (absurd) argument over weathering powders where several people have pointed out that 'all they are are Artist's pigments' - well, they patently AREN'T. No more so than having sheets of styrene in my workspace means i'm going to competing with DML any time soon:..

There is a useful Osprey around "Soviet Field Fortifications", then there is a nice site called LINK With this only you can have enough to work for a lifetime so research, i doubt they really went very far for it. As for the translation, honestly, I (and quite a lot of people I know) have been translating harder shapes already The reason why I still value their work is none of the above, it's more that I believe it's not balsa. balsa is not a wood I really like working on, the grain and strength of the wood does make it unsuitable for a number of treatments. If it's really pine -like wood as I suppose then it's getting harder to scratchbuild, more interesting to destroy/weather and justify at least the existence of such a kit.

Give me a while and I'll dig some up for you though they'll be Finnish and not Soviet or German. Remember these aren't hastily constructed bunkers put up by frontoviks but installations in a defensive line constructed by specialist engineer battalions over a long period of time. I've been in the reconstructed bunkers in the Finnish War Museum and the Tank Museum in Parola and they are, for what it's worth, neatly built. As for being easy to make DIY, that's easy to say when you have the skill. Plenty of modelers don't or don't want to spend the time doing this kind of work when there's a kit available. As for the price well as always that's relative. By the way I'm in the market for a new car

Well, I like 'em. If they're 'too perfect', then let your modelling skills loose on them. That's what the hobby is about. Cripes, one can build a kit OOB and finish and weather it - no-one complains about that being too 'perfect' or 'easy'. I think the company have done an excellent job in finding a niche to fill and they deserve some recognition for the fact that their structures are based on research rather than specualtion. $0.02 acav

My thoughts precisely...

Jim, you are right, weathering powders aren't Artist's pigments, they are pigments that the model companies have named "Weathering Powder". Of course Artist's pigments are simply pigments that art companies have named "Artist's Pigments" , so, in a lot of ways they ARE the same thing. Granted, maybe "weathering powders" are more finely ground than "artist pigments" and they have been mixed to their creators definition of an authentic color, but that doesn't mean "artist's pigments" should be completely dismissed as you are doing Jim, by describing the argument as "absurd." I have some MIG pigments, and they are very nice, but for myself, the difference between them and this set that I purchased makes no difference.