The Debate
Over the last few years there have been some discussions about Tankette and the content, size & layout. During my time as editor I have had quite a few letters commenting on various aspects of the magazine, on the size of photographs that were being printed, too small to see detail clearly. Also the font size has been an issue as some members have said that it is becoming harder to read. Over the last couple of years I have made some changes to the layout of Tankette, only using 1 photograph on the front cover and no more than 4 photographs to a full page. On the issue of font size, it is possible to use a larger font; however it would look unbalanced on the size format of Tankette.
One of the problems that I have encountered has been down to the choice of size of plans that I could use and on which pages to use them. For example, the 3 sizes that I use are 1/76th, 1/48th and 1/35th. However when using 1/35th I am limited to using the centre pages and also the size of the vehicle. Anything bigger than a light tank is too big, I tried to print a US half track and it came out very tightly compressed (see 42/5). So if I want to print say a Chieftain MBT it would have to be in 1/48th on the centre pages or 1/76th on any other page, which does limit my choices on some occasions. With 1/35th being the preferred modelling scale, however 1/48th is taking off and 1/72nd is now being well catered for. Which brings me another dilemma, do I change the scale from 1/76th to 1/72nd or do I use both and be dammed.
So these are some of the issues surrounding Tankette, there has been discussions over the last few years on what to do to resolve them. One suggestion has been to go to A4 size magazine, which would alleviate them all in one fell swoop. However this brings its own problems, cost to produce and also material to fill 6 issues a year.
To deal with the cost aspect, several printers have been approached to get quotes to produce an A4 magazine with 20 pages (as opposed to the current 16 half foolscap) with limited colour. To do this it would mean that the membership cost would go from £9 to £12 per year (for 6 issues), an increase of £3 (33%). However Tankette would increase in size by over 50% and would allow many changes.
Tankette magazine has been in this format of half foolscap for over 40 years and is slightly dated in its appearance, however it has served its purpose well over the years. The best time to change size is with a new volume and at this point in time I am looking at the next volume (44), which would be a good time to change.
So I feel it is time that all MAFVA members are given the chance to have their say, so it is now over to you and I do look forward to receiving constructive views.
Neil Wharton 8th July 2008

Hi Neil,

This sounds like an excellent idea. I personally think the rise in the subs would be very justified as there are not that many groups with 6 magazines for £12 a year. I have already spoken to a few of my Lads and they would be willing to support a new format and do some articles. If the thing isn't cost effective could you not give the final page over to 4 or 8 advertisements? This is no different to what anyone else does, the Tankette has a large enough distribution to make it worthwhile for traders.

On the subject of scales the 'Big Three' are definitely 1:35, 1:48 and 1:72 (I apologise if I offend those who produce 1:76) and A4 would be good for nearly any vehicle, so go for it and make the Tankette something to really shout about.

Regards
Lee Lacey,
Secretary, MAFVA Essex

Hi
I've got no problems paying a little more for a larger magazine.
Sounds like a good idea.

Well that is good to know that you can get some articles, reviews done for Tankette. As always I would rather have to many to choose from than not enough.

Hi Neil,

The only drawback I can see with Tankette going to A4 size is the break with tradition. Personally I wouldn’t mind the price increase as it would go with an increase in content.

I have for many years been the editor or on the editorial team of the IPMS-Hellas magazine which has always been A4 size and I am well aware of the pros and cons. There are more pros than cons. The larger size certainly provides a lot more freedom to arrange content, the font size can be increased and also photos can be printed to a much more useful size to show the details modellers want to see.

Some space in the magazine could be reserved for advertisements which would pay for at least part of the costs. If the cost of advertising in Tankette is lower than the large commercial modelling mags, it might be a good place for various cottage industries to advertise so as to reach a more specialised group of modellers.

As for the choice between 1/72 and 1/76 the scale I think both can appear in the magazine just as they both exist in modelling. I used to avoid 1/72 like the plague, but with all the kits coming out nowadays I’ve started accepting it. As long as a plan is printed correctly it can be accurately rescaled by the modeller pretty easily these days, especially if a scale bar appears on the plan.

At IPMS-Hellas we’ve gone a step further. As the cost of printing our magazine on paper with only a few pages in colour had become prohibitive, we decided to go digital. The mag now comes out on CD in .pdf format. The advantages are many: It’s only a quarter of the previous cost, it can be in full colour, there is no page limit (it had to be in multiples of eight), we can include additional material such as extra reference photos on the CD, it’s environmentally friendlier as we no longer use paper. The only disadvantage is that it can be copied so perhaps some people will copy it from their friends instead of paying for membership. Well, we hope that they will realise that if they do this, soon they will not have a mag to copy.

I hope the above is helpful

Fyll

For what it's worth, my view is that a change of size to accommodate plans in 1/35 scale without convoluted manipulation or a restriction to equipment the size of a Univerrsal Carrier would be a worthwhile move. Changing to a larger font woud also be worthwhile; although I can still read it, I'm sure there must be those who struggle.

Personally I'm still a fan of 1/76 as my stash predates the recent expansion of 1/72 but I recognise that the most important thing is to have a reliable plan, the scale being secondary. Printing all plans in multiple scales seems like an extravagance in this age of scanners and image manipulation software - those of us without access to such kit can always use public library or copy shop facilities, which usually have zoom copiers.

I've made the point for some years that MAFVA sub rates have not even kept up with UK prioce inflation over the years - last time I did the calculation, in the late 1990s, I found that UK subs should have been around £15 just to have kept pace with prices generally, so Gary has done a fine job in keeping them as low as he has. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that a price rise accompanied by an improvement in the format will give rise to a fall in resubs - after all, if we can afford to buy Dargon kits at £30, most of us can muster less than half that for a decent reference source.

As to content, I think the value of the non-commercial journals such as Tankette and AFV News is that they can cover (often in small articles) soem fairly obscure subjects (and obscure elements of common subjects) in a waythat would simply be unfeasible for the commercial press. The latter is increasingly focused on finishing techniques and inspirational work (which is fine - that's why I buy AFV Modeller, for example) but the provision of scale plans is pretty rare outside Mil Mod. Indeed, ADH has a policy of avoiding them for some reason that I forget. It is interesting to look at the number of published works that cite sources from Tankette and some very good reserch has been published in it over the years. There is limited value to me in trying to emulate the commercial press, which can do what it does better than we can so let's stick with the section of the market where we have a unique selling point and which is unlikely to be threatened by the commercials. I'm happy to see the occasional modelling article but would prefer it not to be of the 'it came in a stout box, I built it and painted it green because I liked the colour and I didn't have any references about it ' type piece, which never really seesm to contribute much to the sum of knowledge. If people want to model for fun, that's their choice (however wrong it may be!) but that doesn't mean the rest of us want to read about it if we don't learn anything useful to help us if we tackle the same project. Reviews are fine for me as long as they are by people who a) know the subject (they don''t have to be great painters) and b) are prepared to crriticise because they are not dependent on freebies for the reviews to be written. If I've spent my own cash on something, I will feel more entitled to criticise it if I don't think I had value for money. While there are those who can be objective even when provided with free stuff, the reader doesn't necessarily know who they are until he has enough evidence to formulate a view.

is that helpful?

Bob

Greetings all,
In order to help balance the question over the adjustment to tankette I have a question:

Neil, you have indicated that a £3 increase in annual membership would be sufficient to cater for the revised cost to printing, however does that also include

the inevitable increase in P&P costs which goes with increases in size and packaging, and
what will you do with all of those envelopes left over and unused?

Fyll from Greece has a singular point with the CD or WebMag option but that has its obvious drawbacks (especially those without easy access to a PC etc).

Tradition in-and-of-itself is nice and warm and cosy but even within hard and fast tradition some changes are inevitable (Queens Birthday parade springs to mind - weaponary SA80's etc).

Tankette needs to keep pace with todays market, retain its existing clients, whilst trying to gain new ones. All of that and by not trying to emulate the current mainstream offerings (they all repeat the same information anyway so we shouldn't need to).
Bob Lockie also has his point about 'wooly' reviews - I agree, if your purchase is Good-say so, likewise if it's Crap-say so, and why but above all be honest.

ANY advertising (to support costs) either offered or sought should be conditional on them having absolutely no influence over the magazine content.

Personally:
To me, it would make no real difference what size format Tankette came in, after all, isn't it the information and research data that we all want.
I would like to see some accurate' 1/48th & 1/35th scale plans in tankette as they are sadly lacking in mainstream publications.
(It's easier to Reduce a large plan than increase a small one)
Yes!, a slight increase in font size would also be most appreciated.
The occassional use of colour pictures 'to enhance content' would be helpful but not essential.
I feel that in the last several years the 'size' of images published has been a cause for concern as little tangable information can be gleened from such small offerings.
Decent quality/sized pictures would be a better approach (although you play the cards you're dealt).

My vote is: If it's workable, then lets do it - I suggest a full member vote with the next issue of Tankette (enclosure slip)