Hello all,

Bit of background to this work in progress.... not much bothers me but a few things do, one of which is the portrayal of the Commonwealth forces in Normandy by some authors (one now deceased plagiariser in particular) as being a little less agressive than they might have been. So.... here's a model I'm working on with a kind of "generic" M4 hybrid in an unnamed village during the very unpleasant fighting around Caen, hopefully offering some balance to the tea-drinking stereotype.
Sherman is Tasca/Asuka,hull from the Firefly, turret (from another kit) I thought I'd have a go at recreating the cheek bulge rather than filling in the loader's hatch on the Firefly turret. Hopefully looks alright to those who know....

Apologies for crummy phone photos... will try and sort out some better ones.

Commander figure is from the kit with an Alpine head:



Made a few houses from balsa foam, one of which hasn't fared too well. I tried to simulate a kitchen, incorporating as many "ordinary" things as possible. Locals here suffered pretty badly in 1944 and I thought inclduing bits and pieces of "civilian life" would be a reminder of the ordinary lives which were shattered:


AFV Club sIG33 is tucked around the corner. Bit of articstic licence with this but it "fit" (just about) and has some nice extras to throw around it:


Front view..... the periscopes are still masked, and the weathering has only just been started, this just gives an idea of layout. Hopefully one or two infantry figures scrambling over the rubble will complete things:


A lot to do still... comments/feedback/discussion welcome

Cheers

Sean

Then I first saw the Sig photo I thought it was the real thing! I keep looking at it and it still looks real!

That is some very impressive work so far Sean and really has the Normandy"feel" to it in the building and groundwork,etc. You are right about the Commonwealth stuff and I am happy to see it. Nice ! Maybe these are the same guys about to come up against my PAK crew ?
J

OK Sean, you have to tell us which author(s) you're talking about.
I've read most of the books on the invasion, and the majority seem to blame 'the world's greatest general', Monty (just ask him) for his plodding, bash straight up the middle style of warfare, leading as it did to the many failures around Caen.

Hello there,

Michael- thanks very much. It's a really nice kit that went together with no problems. Enough detail without being too fiddly.

Jerry- "Maybe these are the same guys about to come up against my PAK crew ?"
I hope not, for all their sakes....

Ralph- In particular I was referring to Stephen Ambrose. For the sake of balance, I will say this about him. He probably got more people interested in the subject of Normandy, and by extension WW2 (maybe even history generally) than the majority of authors. Also, it might be said that he may have been under pressure from his publishers to write stuff which would sell. They're in the business of selling books. If he wrote what his expected leadership wanted to read (at least the majority of it), then they would sell more books. Same thing with politicians (and I'm not singling out any particular individual or country ), they tell people what they want to hear in order to get their votes. So, when he wrote stuff which showed certain individuals in a good light, and others in, well, less good (particularly if that encouraged already formed stereotypical opinions), then that would be good for sales.
Every author has an agenda. That agenda may be to uncover the truth, it may be to contradict one existing point of view, it may be to reinforce another. In the latter two cases it frequently emerges that authors have found evidence to fit their preconceived ideas, so have occasionally twisted some facts and ignored others to fit their conclusion, rather than reach an objective conclusion from assembling said facts. No-one is totally objective, I accept that. There is subjectivity in my first post and in this one. What I write (in fact everything I do) is affected by my own ideals, morals etc.
I am English, I live in Normandy, I have had many friends (American, British, Canadian and German) who fought here in 1944 (mostly now deceased I'm afraid) and as such I may have an understandable reaction when I see criticism of those friends. I have been fortunate enough to have had occasion to spend time talking with many more that were here.
There is a tendency to single out Monty for his "arrogance". I'm not a "fan" of the bloke, I think he had many flaws (don't we all), arrogance being one of them, but he wasn't unique in that respect (ask George or Douglas, for example). A certain amount of "self-confidence" (it's a fine line...)is I think a prerequisite for the job.
There is also a tendency to equate Montgomery's role with that of Bradley, ie Monty's east flank, Bradley's west. Often forgotten is that Montgomery was Bradley's superior (not equal), and a better comparison would be Bradley and Dempsey.
The overall strategic objectives for Normandy were to hold the bulk of the German forces around Caen enabling a breakout on the western flank and be in Paris by end of August. What happened?
It's also often forgotten that other objectives weren't taken as quickly as was hoped (Cherbourg, Saint Lô for example) but very few people would suggest the American forces involved were "plodding". And yes, I know about the hedgerows, I live here in the heart of the bocage. They don't "stop" with the US/Commonwealth boundary by the way

Anyway, my main concern is crticism of the troops themselves (particulary as some are still with us) and thier conduct rather than Generals and generalship.

Should you ever have an opportunity to visit Normandy, i'd be more than happy to show you around and clarify some of the mis-conceptions written by others

Sorry if this is a bit of a rant, no disrespect intended of course.

Cheers

Sean

I understand your point(s) Sean. That's why there are many topical books, authors and viewpoints. In any case, we all know that a lot of good people fought hard and died hard there...

Very nice diorama - nicely built, and staged. More photos please.

Oddly enough I always love the little details - like the decorative tiles. How did you make 'em?

Ambrose gets credit for not doing what most historians do--writing books that will only be read by other historians. Like Barbara Tuchman, Ambrose wrote books that made an impact outside the academic world, and anything which gets average folks to take an interest in history is a worthwhile thing in my view.

However his tendency to borrow from the work of other historians without attribution and his occasionally sloppy research and skewed presentation of events does taint his legacy, e.g. he does not appear to have spent nearly as much time with Eisenhower as he claimed. This suggests that consulting other sources is a good idea rather than relying on just a Stephen Ambrose book.

As for an American tendency to discount the role of allied troops in WWII, yeah, that's a thing alright. Any suggestion that the breakout would have happened sooner if British and Canadian troops had been of better quality or just more determined is misguided. Even Bradley thought that Patton could not have closed the Falaise Gap any faster than the Brits and Canucks. One side of my family was there fighting under the Canadian flag, the other side for the United States, so I hope my biases balance out, LOL.

The diorama is looking great, looking forward to seeing it finished.

Having read umpteen books on the battles around Caen,I have a deep appreciation for the difficulties facing the Canadians and Brits fighting on the Eastern end of the Invasion Front. people always like to say,first of all,that the Commonwealth forces should have pushed on after landing and gotten further inland,maybe even to Northern Caen on the first day. They were exhausted mentally and physically,having just managed to get ashore and then push past the beach defenses. They still did manage to push some kilometers inland anyway. Any further and they would gotten a "Meeting Engagement" with the 21st Pz and also elements of the 12SS ! After that they were up against the just arrived entire 12SS which was fully equipped,well led and well trained. Also right after that the 101st Tiger Bn and the Panzerlehr,21st Pz etc. Attacking is always harder than defending and th Brits had been at war since 1939 and had suffered a lot of casualties on the ground and in the bomber campaign at night. They deliberately fought set piece battles with overwhelming arty support and tanks galore,in order to save the precious scarce Infantry,as they had not much choice. Given all those factors and more,the Commonwealth troops fought very very well and bravely,even though some had never been in action before. Montys attack plans were well organized and sound. The thing is,there is always the other side shooting back at you and the other side in this case was quite good. By the peak of the maneuver battles around Caen the Commonwealth forces were tying down the PzLehr,2,21 and 116 Pz Div,1,9 and 10SS PzDive plus other Inf and Luftwaffe Ground Divs. So,yes,the DDay strategy of Monty didn't work but he adapted and then prevailed.
Long story short,I am in awe of the job all the Allied troops did during that fight in Northern France. Plus,being a professional soldier,I also respect the defense put up by the Wehrmacht in Normandy,knowing as I do the extreme circumstances they had to operate in.
J

Decades ago I read every book on WWII in the library at my High School, and later in college, and gained a lot of respect for all the Allied soldiers that fought in Europe. They all did the best they could with what they had.

The Germans scored some impressive victories here and there in Normandy, but the Commonwealth forces still beat them, and you don't do that sitting around with a tea cup.

Ralph,

Agreed, and thanks for the kind comments. I'll take some more photos when I get a minute. Busy with work and other stuff (no bad thing of course).
The tiles are from Reality in Scale (I think). I picked up a few sets of stuff like this at Scale Model Challenge a couple of years ago but put them together in box with other "household items" without their packaging. They're nice a pretty easy to use. A new blade helps cut them into strips/individual tiles.






Doug,

Exactly my thoughts on Ambrose.He made history appealing and interesting to many who might not otherwise have shown any interest. Honestly, I don't really mind what gets people into the subject if it leads them to further study. That initial spark miht be books, computer games, scale models, visiting places, whatever. If it encourages further study then it's a good thing I think.
And as I said, I think Ambrose was under a certain amount of pressure to "keep delivering" which inevitably leads to cut corners. The outright lying he did is something I can't take though.

The national bias is certainly there and in some ways understandable if a little frustrating. It's always nice to see more balanced and international recognition
Again, thanks for the comments.




Jerry,

You sum up my feeling on the matter very well indeed, although I was never a professional soldier (unless you count a few weeks as a teenager in the elite unit which was Old Buckenham Air Training Corps ).




Randall,

Absolutely.

Thanks all for comments. I'll try and get some more done in the coming days.

Cheers

Sean

Slow progress due to work, a few days away and my usual procrastination. All that and I tidied my bench a bit
Does make a world of difference.

Away from the M4 I decided to start on a couple of PBI, both from the Dragon British Infantry Normandy set with a couple of additions (heads and hands) courtesy of Hornet and Alpine.



I may tilt this guy's head forward a little to look at the uneven rubble, which I'll tweak a bit once he's in place:



I've trimmed down the helmet camouflage strips a bit as I'll redo them with tape or something to give them a bit more "life" hopefully.

Thanks for looking and as ever, comments, suggestions, corrections all welcome.

Cheers

Sean

Yes !!! Really nice pose on the Tommy. He really fits in perfectly.
I did a few Brits in a dio long ago and I used wedding tulle for the net on the helmet and lead foil strips for the burlap cammo. It worked well but I cannot post a pic because it is on the old Photobucket account.
J

Thanks Jerry!

Praise indeed from the master of naturally posed plastic men (and women...)

A little more progress in that the two infantry types now have an undercaot of base colour. I tilted the head a little of the lead chap because it looked mor like he was concentrating on where his feet were going but more importantly it helps hide my poor face painting abilities:



Cheers

Sean

Perfect! More Kudos.

Yep,that works,
J

Sean,
Thanks for posting your progress on the epic struggle to finally break-out after the massive landings, looks real promising. Taking note of your application with the rubble, very believable and that's not always easy to do.

Truly enjoyed reading the comments by the fellows on who did what, when, and where, and now I've been inspired to revisit some history myself on the "why".
Good stuff and just one of the great things about this website!

Naturally some other great things on here are the armor and figure modeling when put together with care and detail like you have here. Will be following this, keep it coming!

Cheers
Dave

Mike, Jerry and Dave,

Thanks for the comments. Will endeavour to actually finish this one and your words are helping with motivation

Cheers

Sean

Hey Sean no worries, I know the feeling.
Starting and inspiration kinda go hand in hand, its the drive to the end that's the 'trick", I guess.
And this site w/ all its modelers w/ feedback and inspiration has caused me to want to jump back into it w/ both feet moving in unison. You know, not tripping over myself.
Hope you take this to completion. Lookin frwd to more.

Cheers mate
Dave