I'm currently building the Dragon kit of the Panzer III Ausf K. I knew this was one of their older kits but still did not know what to expect. To my relief there was not any photo etch stuff. I have built models with photo etch and for the headache it is to assemble, it not worth it in my opinion. Been doing it this for 20+ years coming up with the old Tamiya kits. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the people who like to add it to their models. The PE is just too thin to simulate straps, fenders, or anything else for that matter. Plastic is the way to go for me. For some people this is a hobby and everyone seems to go off in the deep end. For example "the bolt placement on the wheels are offset" or the "turret is not correct dimension" therefore making the kit a bad one. Those people need to be engineers and design one out of steel if they want to be a perfectionist. Its a plastic kit, what do you expect?

Lee - I understand what you're saying and agree with much of it.

I think that photo etch definitely has its place. HOWEVER, I think some tend to take it to extremes, and I suspect that with a fair few modellers, there's a tendency to think that a kit needs a ton of photo-etch chucked at it in order for it to be considered a "good model", and also that photo-etching your builds to death is the only way to go in order to be considered by your peers to be a "serious" modeller.

I sometimes invest in a photo-etch set for a build myself, but I invariably find that I end up not using half of it, because to be honest I can't be bothered faffing around endlessly with things like tool clamps and wing nuts - especially when the plastic part does the job and looks okay in any case, which is increasingly the case these days with the newer kits from the big players and the 'young Turk' firms like Tristar and MB.

PE replacements can be good for larger things such as fenders and tool boxes though, especially when the plastic parts supplied in the kit are way too thick.

And I'm like you - I don't worry if bolt placement is off either. Statements like that usually cause outrage among the 'rivet counter' community ("well you may as well paint it pink with yellow polka-dots, then" being the sort of retort they'll often come back with), but I build for enjoyment and relaxation, which for me personally doesn't include spending endless hours poring over blueprints and technical specs of Tiger tanks (or whatever) and piles of reference books in order to make sure that every last detail is spot-on - to the point where I don't have any time left for actual modelling any more (beware of the dreaded A.M.S ).

Sure, I'll go for accuracy up to a point (and within the limits of my budget and modelling skills) and I'll buy the best and most accurate kit I can afford of a subject that I'm interested in. But if when I'm done the thing looks to the interested layman like a decent approximation of the real thing, then I'm happy. If it walks like a duck ....

I'll give you a good example: I recently read a review of Academy's Vietnam Sheridan. The guy went into great detail listing the kit's shortcomings (some of them relatively easy fixes), even to the point of showing comparison same-size photos of the built model and a real Sheridan, with superimposed red lines to highlight just how much the alignment of the kit's wheels is "off" compared with the real thing.

This to him was a very big deal and a major flaw in the kit. But basically, we were talking a couple of millimetres - and short of crawling all over the thing with blueprints of the original, calipers and other assorted measuring devices, no way would you notice if you saw the model in isolation. It just wouldn't be apparent to the naked eye. So when I get round to my own Academy Sheridan, while I'll do a few of the easier fixes, the fact that the wheel placement is a couple of mm off won't cause me too many sleepless nights.

- Steve

Hi Lee,



I understand how you feel. I had the same experience with Dragon's Flakpanzer38. The PE was good, except for the straps. On advice of a fellowmember and necessity (most straps were broken) I bought the Aber set. Those worked a lot better.
As for accuracy: if you're not good with PE, you'll only spoil the model.

Peter

Everyone has got his own philosophy - some think it is a model, some think it is a miniature.

Sometimes I build a model straight OOTB (like my recent LAV of the JGSDF) and sometimes I grade it up - it depends on how many details a kit provides and...its final colour.

Many PEs are not worth the efforts on a multi-tone colour tank with good details, as the scheme by itself is eye-catching enough and most of the improvements are not be noticed on first sight or from a certain distance.

Especially those PEs which are in very dark areas like NATO Black.

I tend to use PEs on light coloured tanks which have not got many details in general cause of a weak cast or due to a natural design like the superb French Leclerc by Tamiya.


But there is one thing I have noticed as some kind of paradox:

There are many modelers who work over each and and any detail with PEs but give the model finally a paint job which is in best case most unrealistic (rusted tracks on a six month old WW2 tank are my favorites).



I have seen in a German forum a highly detailed Leopard 2A6 with PEs and more PEs, endless discussions about the periscopes, tons of reference pics.

And then he messed up this model with the mentioned paint job...rusted aluminum(!)...chippings over and over...

Hi guys

I agree with most ,if not all that was said. I use PE sometimes but I don't take it to the extremes. It all depends on what a modeler wants-I like the detail and finesse some PE sets give to the final look of a kit but hate the fiddliness of some of the parts, and that's just my ham-handed self some times.I don't mind building a thirty-something year old Tamiya kit with all it's faults, and I appreciate the time and effort guys put into research to do a thorough review, but I don't like when a reviewer trashes a kit out of all reasonableness. But what I find most curious of all is when I see a kit with every after market PE and resin detail set thrown on it.....only to have a subpar or even bad paint job or finish. I see it all the time. Even as a judge at the shows we put on here on LI, I see it frequently. As you said, some modelers build for enjoyment and many other reasons and that's up to the individual, but some build for competition and I try to give constructive feed back to those who ask for it when there model doesn't win or place well. I think Tony Greenland said it best when he said , you will ultimately be judged by the finish. Whatever the case, enjoy the hobby.

hi
yeah i likea little bit of photo etch but not over the top...... but a tip for straps where you need them to bend to more coplex shapes...... heat the brass with a lighter, til it glows... then it will bend and be alot more supple when it cools again.

cheers
neil

Hello Lee, I agree with Steve that photo-etch is not always a necessity for a good model. Almost all of the modelers that I know say that most of the time they only use half (or less) of what is provided in a photo-etch set. There are some things that are definitely better represented by photo-etched parts. I have built several different versions of the Italeri LVT kits. The vanes at the rear and above the tracks (don't know technical term) were improved 100% by the photo-etched replacements I used. I also build ships and have built the RoG 1/72 U-boat. The radar antenna also looks much better in photo-etch. However the etch set provided hand rails that were useless, they were flat. The original kit provided plastic rails looked much better. I also don't like photo-etch ammo belts for the same reason. Some resin makers have Aircraft seat belts that are made to be bendable, I wish some one would try making ammo belts out of the same stuff. That's all I have to say except, enjoy modeling and model what and how you enjoy. Al

Just like with any model or aftermarket addition to the model, with PE you need to pick and choose. Just because it is included on the PE fret doesn't mean it needs to be used or even that it is better than the kit part. Often times with Aber PE sets I find that I only use/need half the pieces.
It's really up to the builder.




This is my only real disagreement with you. I think plastic fenders often times are completely out of scale in thickness on many kits. If you compare the thickness with a 1:35 figure sometimes the fender is as thick as a forearm which would make it about 3-4" thick on the tank. Most fenders and other parts attached to the main tank body were considerably less than 'armored'
Also, with PE fenders can easily simulate the bending and denting that can take place on these parts.
Straps, I think can be better and more realistically made with a softer material such as lead tape.

On the other hand, if you've ever built a Tamiya bicycle or BMW motorcycle, they suffer from the kit spokes which look more like broom sticks. They benefit greatly from the aftermarket PE spokes.

I don't consider myself a rivet counter and will generally take the path that I feel looks best and most realistic in the scale of the model I'm building. Pick and choose what will look best in your final analysis.
Cheers,
Charles

PE has its uses. Is it a mandatory thing? Certainly not...it all depends on what you want to accomplish. Like Charles, I would disagree that PE is too thin to be used for anything at all on a 1/35 scale model. There are limitations, even with modern tooling and techniques, for representing things accurately in-scale in styrene. Fenders are one of those areas (normally just sheet metal on the real tank depending on the vehicle in question) as are others like turret/hull schurzen on German WW2 vehicles (5mm plates on the real deal which would scale out to 0.14mm thick on a 1/35 vehicle). Wanting to depict damage or banged up fenders is also relatively easier to do with metal parts that have been annealed than it is with styrene parts.

Having said that, can those items be represented well enough in styrene without resorting to PE? Sure, the technology keeps improving and some of the molding techniques now are producing some excellent results in styrene only. In the end it all depends on what you want in your build. If plastic is the way to go for you on your III-K, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You should build to your own satisfaction and level of enjoyment.

PE definitely has its shortcomings. It's not well suited to representing 3-D objects without "stacking" or folding it and even then it looks like what it is...something 2-D trying to be 3-D. I've used quite a few PE sets on various projects to varying degrees but have never ever used 100% of a set. Many of the set makers feel that if they can replace a kit part or feature with PE they should...or the buyer won't feel like they're getting their money's worth in the process.

I do think there's a tendency of "brass envy" at times in the hobby where builders will compete so-to-speak to see how much PE they can fit onto a build. While these are no doubt very impressive when viewed "naked" and certainly take a lot of time and effort to build...once painted all that metal disappears into the overall finish. A sharp eye and good photos can tell the difference, but in the end it is ultimately the end result that judges the quality of the finished model, not how much AM stuff you threw at it in the process.

I was just curious on what others had to say on the subject. Like I said, I will use PE on certain areas of a model. It is ideal for bending fenders and other things. But for instance using PE skirts for the side armor on PZ IV tank, the PE looks way too thin. German side armor (on the real thing) is way thicker than what the PE tries to depict.
On another subject has the Pz III Ausf K ever seen action in North Africa in the DAK? The reason I'm asking is that I'm considering painting my model in a shade of dark yellow. If not, it seems to be a nice what if model.

I used your build guide to the Dicker Max. It was a great reference during my build. Unfortunately, my weathering efforts messed up the finish. It was also my first attempt at building link by link tracks, which went better than expected. I liked the way your build went.

People should just build models the way they enjoy it most. For some it means slapping on tons of PE and other aftermarket products; for others it means getting the best of what's in the box; others again love to scratchbuild a kitchen sink in every model they can fit it into.

Unfortunately, as with many things, there's always kind of a tilted competition element in things for some people. I mean those people for whom 'money spent' equals 'better kit'. I've seen that in gardening where people actually laughed at my dad for not having some expensive type connectors to his handles and his water hoses (which were fashionable at the time), and I see it in modelling where any expensive kit / update set / paint / pigment is considered better by default.

Well... if that's how they enjoy the hobby, they're welcome to it. Just don't bother me and my way of glueing crude chunks of plastic together to vaguely resemble military vehicles.

Different opinions are what make for a horserace.

PE manufacturers are not created equal, nor are their attempts uniformally of the same quality. Generally the "better" ones are Aber and Voyager, though both have issues (Aber relies too much IMO on scratchbuilt parts or the dreaded Polish word "drut" or "wire" which requires the modeler to provide some wire part not included). Among the least-accurate and flimsiest are the older Eduard sets: bend the thing the wrong way and it snaps.

Griffon and Lion Roar are greatly improving their somewhat limited offerings (selected kits with selected vehicles).

I generally like PE for almost all kits because it provides a level of realism I like. It's a pain in the ass much of the time, but a pain I'm willing to endure for accuracy. But that doesn't make my version any better than one OOB.

Having the right tools for using PE is essential to your enjoying the experience. My kit includes:

PE bending tool (the "Bug" in my case, but there are others)
PE diamond file (Tamiya)
a good hobby knife for cutting
a butane-powered lighter for annealing the brass to make it softer and easier to bend and shape
both CA glue (for quick fixes) and acrylic glue (Gator Glue) for slower jobs

Some have mastered using solder to fashion their PE, but I haven't yet.

One of the popular misconceptions is that the side skirts were heavy armor...they weren't. They were 5mm steel plates designed to provide added protection to vulnerable areas susceptible to damage from Russian anti-tank rifles. As I mentioned above, 5mm scales out to 0.14mm on a 1/35 scale model. Getting plastic parts down to that thin is extremely difficult without them warping while with PE brass it's very easy...for scale accuracy, PE is the better alternative, at least for now.




The Pz III-K as a gun tank wasn't something that was pursued and they were instead used as Befehlspanzers. They are an oddity in that they used a Pz IV turret fitted with extra radios and the standard Pz III KwK 39 L/60 5.0cm gun on a Pz III M hull. So far as I know, none ever saw service in N. Africa.

Thanks for the comments on the Dicker Max build as well!

the true sign of a good modeller is not to use PE but to use the plastic part even when PE is available, purely because it is more realistic. PE is great but it is often used just for the sake of it.

Worried about PE?

Don't fret...

Since when did using loads of PE on a model mean that the modeller was purely doing so to make himself feel better? It never occured to me that some people think modelleres just add a ton of PE to their models to feel satisfied that they're building the best possible kit. In my case, I'm just satisfied that it's accurate enough for me to be happy with it. I can't stand plastic fenders, that's just the way I see things and if I see a part that doesn't look convincing and there's a way to improve or replace it then that's what I'll do. Most of the time that solution is photo etch. I'll admit that I rarely use every part supplied in AM sets but even if the construction of a certain part is fiddly as hell, I actually enjoy it. I like, for example making small bolts out of two seperate brass parts instead of using plastic ones, regardless of how tedious it is. But that's just me.
I can't really see the point in discussions like these, I consider myself to be a bit obsessed with accuracy (not nearly as much as others though) and why should I be ashamed of it? The weird thing is, when people use certain terms to brand others like the infamous 'rivet counter', I actually do feel ashamed, eventhough it's nonsense. Things like that don't do this hobby any good. All it does is seperate us. If someone spends months on just one kit researching every little detail then that's his good right, it's also the kind of determination that I admire. If someone is happy with just building a model straight from the box then that's good for him, it's good that he's happy with what he has achieved. All in all this hobby's about having fun and not about typecasting certain people for their approach to modelling. There are plenty of people outside of the hobby realm that don't understand us for what we do, anyone heard of these things called wives/girlfriends? A shame that it sort of happens inside of the hobby nowadays.
I'm not complaining, it's just that I get the feeling that since recently, not everything was allowed anymore.

I buy it because I can afford it. Than you taxpayers for making it possible.

What kills me is all the variety for the same model(and photo etch set), they have 10 different Tigers, when there is a very small difference in all, and companies like Dragon capitalize and comeout with each variant...its confusing and kind of annoying really....when I first joined the site, I saw people talking about the same thing, and I had never heard of photoetch until I bought an M1a2 from Italeri. Pretty intimidating. Also when people talk about a part on a Tiger thats incorrect because that Tiger wasnt in a certain campaign, it kind of takes the fun out of it for the general population. I USED to think that the kit makers were replicating an exact scale model, but when you talk about a certain part of a fender thats .01 mm too thick, then it takes all the fun out of it. I bought a dragon Tiger kit, thats probably way out of my league, but I fear that modelers will pick out every small discrepancy, what happened to trusting the company, or just enjoying the build, maybe even be a little "crazy" and add a part that doesnt belong to that certain tiger at a certain theatre. I guess what I am trying to say is that it shouldnt matter if you dont have a photo etch fender, or photo etched tool clamps, or steel tow lines versus the plastic ones, it should be about how you feel about the model. I am sure some people have a niche about a certain rivet, or a certain diameter to a barrell is off by .001 mm's. its a lot to take in when you are so new to the hobby

I believe if you build competitively and for detail, then PE is a must. It's great to have and be included in the kit (like grills) but for the most part it's over the top.

I've seen some R/C guys use it. On a R/C vehicle? No way, just a waste of money and time that'll get knocked off.

But I think it's more for the serious builder that wants a challenge and wants to get lost in a build ... no matter the cost or the time invested in it.

I completely understand what you're saying in your post. I was a bit disappointed about how accurate some people think a model should be, I came into the military genre from modelling Gundams, where you can basically do anything you want. However, meanwhile I can understand the people who need that detail and accuracy because by now I'm sort of one of them. The good thing about the hobby though, is that even if you see others complaining about discrepancies in some kits, most people won't care if YOU decide to take a different approach to the model and just have fun. This hobby isn't about getting it right, it's about having fun. Otherwise it wouldn't be a hobby. It's just that everyone has a different definition of fun and for some it just means having to build a really accurate model and for some it doesn't. It's just something we have to live with.

This thread reminds me of one on the finescale.com fora where someone railed against the use of airbrushes. It was simple paint brushes for him now and forever more.

Ya know what? More power to him but who cares what he (or any of us) thinks?!?

I use PE because I like how it looks on MY models. I'm good at it and it adds another "wow" factor to my builds. Like it? Cool. Don't? Cool, too.

I can appreciate someone else's model sans PE but it's not my cup of tea and won't ever be. Same thing about car models and die-cast AFVs. Some people love 'em. Just not me.

Now where's my soldering gun??????

The answer to PE is simple. Use what you like or completely ignore it if you want you can still build great models without it. I use the PE I am comfortable with and that makes sense with the build I am doing period so sometimes this means I use most of a set and other times I throw half of it into the spares bin. Most modelers will reach a point that using PE or not they are going to start correcting kit details to fix mistakes in the molding or enhance the details. No ones telling anyone they have to use it (PE) that I know of and if they are telling you that well they are missing the point of the hobby.

Now this statement
doesn't make sense to me. PE is thinner than most of the plastic parts it tends to be far closer to scale thickness than the same detail in plastic due to the molding process. Is that what you really meant because your comment is usually the reason TO use PE, ie. a fender is more in scale when done from PE than the plastic kit parts tend to be especially older kits.

Personally for straps and such I can use PE but I can also use some lead foil and plastic to do the same thing. Again it really depends on what you like and why you build kits. For me its a hobby which has nothing to do with my career ie. I do this to relax and I only build for myself not for contests or for clients. Your thread like many of these that get started ends up being a rant on people that like to super detail. Are you sure that is what you want?

That's true that this hobby isn't ALL about getting it right. It's ALL about having fun putting into it and as well as getting something out of it.

PE and aftermarket is all relative. I primarily build 350 scale ships. I just can't see not using a PE set on one of those. It gives you guard railing which is about as thick as a piece of hair and of course radars and cranes and all sorts of goodies le that. On tanks, I always replace barrels and add engine screens, and usually fenders. Generally if the detail is there in plastic I keep it rather than cut it off. Having learned howto deal with super tiny pieces and discovering Gator glue, I certainly am more than capable of doing straps and such, I just choose not to. ONe thng I didn't pick up on in this thread is that therre are a lot of folks who compete in model shows. You really need to do the metal tracks, PE, and barrels etc if you are to be competative nowdays. Others will spend hours and hours researching one vehicle. They are not looking to do a generic Tiger that want one specific one or a specific unit. One thing we have to realize is that there are different levels in a lot of things. Some think OOB is great others will practically replace half the kit with AM. So it boils down to what makes you the builder happy. NOt the other guys opinion if you are a serious modeler or a rivet counter. I am glad this thread didn't generate that argument as it usually does.