Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

G'day all,

Just wondering if the FOW plastics (like the Open Fire boxed set) would go alongside Plastic Soldier Company plastics or do you think it would look odd?

I know the BF metals are a bit bobble headed, but looking at pictures of their newer plastics, they look much more realistically proportioned and maybe would go well next to the PSC stuff?

I'm thinking specifically of buying the Open Fire boxed set and then expanding it with PSC plastics and maybe doing a small Soviet PSC force as well.

I mix them but so use only vehicles. Their infantry differ pretty noticeably but I'd consider mixing just not in same platoon maybe.

The newer chunkier style PSC infantry would work well, the older more realistically proportioned ones less so.

For example the New British BF plastic infantry look very similar the PSC ones. I can see them working together well.

Ah ok, so PSC are going the bobble headed path as well

I feel like I'm just going to be buying models and see what works together, it's so hard to tell from pictures unless you can get a direct side by side.

Anyway, I went to my FLGS and unfortunately they didn't have "open fire", they did have "achtung" so I picked it up. Wow, these are some of the worst plastics I've ever laid my hands on They look like resin models that were recast as plastic, warps and all. Haven't tried putting a stug together yet, but the Sherman has huge gaps, individually the sides line up with the top of the hull and with the bottom of the hull, but when you try and put all 4 pieces together it's clear the parts are warped, the right track wants to sit at an angle and there's a big gap where the left section meets the top hull section.

I don't think I'll be buying any more BF plastic tanks unless the others are a lot better.

Apparently there was an issue at the factory with those particular items. I had the same issues. Took a look of knife work to get everything to fit together properly. From what I understand all the other plastics are much higher quality. I hVe the open fire and the plastic infantry and PaK 40s are quite excellent.

Yeah, they're pretty terrible, I was expecting to have all of them assembled by now but instead I'm still working on the first sherman hull, I've almost got it fitting together now, but there'll be a lot of gaps to fill afterwards.

It's basically test fit -> crooked -> trim -> test fit -> still crooked, trim somewhere else -> test fit -> still crooked but slightly better, trim a bit more -> test fit -> whoops, removed too much, now there's a gap, oh well, still crooked -> trim somewhere else -> repeat until done

One of the things I normally like about plastics is they look machined, the edges look sharp and straight, barrels are straight and have a surface similar to a machined metal barrel... these models are nothing like that lines aren't straight and the things don't fit. The wheels don't look round either.

Oh well... I'll stop complaining and just put them together.

Oh, and in the book they Shermans are listed as M4A1's... I'm not an expert on US WW2 military stuff but I'm pretty sure they are actually M4A4 Shermans (which is important to know when you're filling the gigantic gaps on the corners of the huill that you aren't trying to make it look like a cast hull like the M4A1 ).

I do love that they give you magnets and the turrets have a nice little hollow in them for the magnets to stick.

The Pak40 in plastic by BF is incorrect though.

Has an odd massive lump on the barrel.

BF Shermans are not hard to assemble, but you need to trim off the mounting rail on the inside of the right hand track (think its the right hand one) that causes the problems - then they go together ok.

I put mine together one at a time and left them in a vice, resulted in minimal issues after.

They work alongside PSC ones but they are noticeably different - e.g. the fireflies from BF have a much chunkier look to them while the PSC ones look better but are a lot more fragile.

Newer PSC stuff is more obviously aimed at gamers, the older stuff looks very nice but doesn't play well. Just hope that when they eventually do some Soviet artillery you either have two crews so you can have ones that match the older style or they are just the older style ones.

Id love to know what people do to models to feel they are fragile.

I play weekly and have never had to repair any plastic kit from any maker.

leopard wrote:
BF Shermans are not hard to assemble, but you need to trim off the mounting rail on the inside of the right hand track (think its the right hand one) that causes the problems - then they go together ok.

I had to do quite a bit more than that to get the hull square (though I wish I had of known that before I started as I did waste a bit of time shaving the bottom of the upper hull trying to get it sit flush).

In addition to that I had to trim bits off the back right of the lower hull or the right track section would not be vertical. I had to trim a large portion of the lower hull section where it joins to the right track because the whole right track was sitting to high and I had shaved most of it off before I got it to sit right (still not sure what part was stopping it ). I had to trim a wedge out of the back of the track guard on the left track section otherwise the front of the top of the hull wouldn't sit flush with it like it should. I shaved the top back of the glacis plate to get the hull to meet flush with it (ended up with a bit of a gap that I'll have to fill later, but at least they line up now). Had to trim a bit off the top most part of the bottom hull section at the rear as it was impinging on the rear of the top hull and causing a gap. I had to shave the mantlet as it was sitting way too far out (didn't look natural so I googled it and sure enough it wasn't correct). In various spots I just had to trim and shave attachment points, especially in corners because things weren't sitting flush.

Now that the first one is together there'll be a few gaps to fill (which I expect anyway, there's always gaps on such models, so whatever, but the gaps are definitely larger and more awkward than I'd like).

I put a StuG together as well. It was much better, most of it went together without a problem. Probably thanks to the fact the upper and lower hull form a nice box by themselves, where as the Sherman you have to glue it all together at once and adjust it before the glue dries. But even the StuG the tracks need to be shimmed at the bottom so they aren't tilted inward at the bottom. I'll probably just use greenstuff for it, though I think I'll airbrush them before I stick them on as it will be tricky to get paint in to some of those crevices once it's all stuck together.

None of it was beyond me to fix, and I wouldn't call any of it "hard"... it's just when I buy an "easy assemble" model, I kind of expect it to be easy to assemble If I wanted to spend ages assembling models I'd stick to display models that are typically much more accurate and better detailed. I was actually going to give the Shermans to a mate to try and get him involved in some good ol' WW2 table top gaming, I'm glad I didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:
Id love to know what people do to models to feel they are fragile.

I play weekly and have never had to repair any plastic kit from any maker.

I don't think I've ever broken a model gaming.

Most my mishaps are snapping things while removing them from the sprue or removing mould lines, or in transport. Magnets go a long way to solving the transport problem.

I regularly use PSC and Battlefront models (as well as Old Glory, QRF Forged in Battle, Zvesda, Minarons and Peter Pig) in the same army. So long as every vehicle of a given type is the same (especially in the same platoon) the minor size differences are difficult to spot.

Had issues with gun barrels occasionally breaking or bending, and small details like .50cal breaking off - typically during transport more than on the table.

Didn't realise there was anything wrong with the BF Plastic sherman turret - which is perhaps why I had no issues with it..

Hull was just shaving one side, then holding in a vice until the glue set - did use some of the "plastic putty" filler on the joins but the gaps were no worse than other models I've assembled.

Mind you not had gaps on PSC models, except where some of the pips were not cleaned off (i.e. my fault), PSC kits are some of the easiest to assemble I have ever come across.

I have more of an issue adding a new model to an old platoon and being unable to get the paint to match than the models being different...

leopard wrote:
I have more of an issue adding a new model to an old platoon and being unable to get the paint to match than the models being different...

That happened in real life as well. A new/repaired and repainted tank rarely exactly matched the rest of the tanks in the platoon.

 Ghaz wrote:

leopard wrote:
I have more of an issue adding a new model to an old platoon and being unable to get the paint to match than the models being different...

That happened in real life as well. A new/repaired and repainted tank rarely exactly matched the rest of the tanks in the platoon.

I know, its the only saving grace, of course in what passes for the real world I guess they had to content with actual supply issues more often than the name of a paint range changing, or the muppet in charge of painting forgetting which late night drunken experiment was inflicted on which unsuspecting vehicle...

Do find a decent level of weathering hides a great many sins..

thankfully

leopard wrote:
Had issues with gun barrels occasionally breaking or bending, and small details like .50cal breaking off - typically during transport more than on the table.

Didn't realise there was anything wrong with the BF Plastic sherman turret - which is perhaps why I had no issues with it..

Hull was just shaving one side, then holding in a vice until the glue set - did use some of the "plastic putty" filler on the joins but the gaps were no worse than other models I've assembled.

Mind you not had gaps on PSC models, except where some of the pips were not cleaned off (i.e. my fault), PSC kits are some of the easiest to assemble I have ever come across.

I have more of an issue adding a new model to an old platoon and being unable to get the paint to match than the models being different...

Maybe my models were miscasts or maybe I'm just fussier. The Sherman turrets were fine, but most of the joins seemed to have excess material on them, and I literally mean MOST of the joins. I had to shave every side of the top hull of my Shermans to get it to sit flush.

The StuG was a lot easier but mainly because it's a simpler model, it was still messed up. The upper glacis plate (the bit with the driver's vision slit) was too wide and had to be trimmed to fit, the muzzle brake had a nodule that I assume was there to allow you to center the muzzle brake on the barrel but it was too fat so I just had to remove it and position it by eye. The mantlet on the Sherman had too much material behind it and needed significant shaving to sit close to where it should (granted I could have just glued it on, but looking at images of M4A4's, it was waaay off where it should have been).

I'm looking at the pictures on Battlefront's website and mine look like completely different models of much lower quality

There's also seams where it feels like they didn't need seams. The PSC M4A4's have the entire upper hull as one piece, having it as multiple pieces like the "Achtung!" ones means that you have 3 surfaces that should be perfectly flat single pieces of steel have great big seams.

Many of the surfaces which should be dead flat machined bits of steel have a texture to them, which increases the idea that maybe they were miscast, I've just never come across that type of miscast on plastic models.

I don't like complaining about models but wow these are literally the worst plastics I've ever assembled Maybe they were miscasts or something because the ones in the BF tutorial videos don't look nearly as bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

leopard wrote:
I have more of an issue adding a new model to an old platoon and being unable to get the paint to match than the models being different...

That happened in real life as well. A new/repaired and repainted tank rarely exactly matched the rest of the tanks in the platoon.

I know, its the only saving grace, of course in what passes for the real world I guess they had to content with actual supply issues more often than the name of a paint range changing, or the muppet in charge of painting forgetting which late night drunken experiment was inflicted on which unsuspecting vehicle...

Do find a decent level of weathering hides a great many sins..

thankfully

I actually like it... it means I can mix my own colours and if they vary slightly from one vehicle to the next it actually adds character. I believe the German tank paints were designed to be sprayed on and thinned with gasoline, but were often just slopped on with rags and thinned with goodness knows what, then some would be sitting in the sun for longer so I'm sure the paint faded, so I imagine the tone of different tanks varied wildly. It all adds to the character

Oh agree the Open fire models are not amazing, and its more likely you know more about what a Sherman should look like than me..

Oddly found the Stug worse than the Shermans, never could work out how to get the muzzle brake to fit, so left it off. They don't look anything like as nice as the resin ones from the old starter set.

Horses for things horses run round, perhaps would have been better for BF to do a few more plastics before the starter set, but for the price not really complaining, indeed bought a second one..

Yoof turned up this week with more PSC sprues that I thought possible.. he certainly likes them, as do I, shows just what can be done

From what I understand, the plastics in the Open Fire box were designed without the aid of CAD, hence their poor quality.

I didn't have any problems with the assembly of the Shermans or the StuG's
I used testers and little clothes pins to secure them while drying.
Simple!

leopard wrote:
Oh agree the Open fire models are not amazing, and its more likely you know more about what a Sherman should look like than me..

Oddly found the Stug worse than the Shermans, never could work out how to get the muzzle brake to fit, so left it off. They don't look anything like as nice as the resin ones from the old starter set

I was always unhappy with those open fire stugs because of that same thing. I guess I never really figured out why till you pointed that out. Damn muzzle brake was fiddly I couldn't get it on. They always look strange now.

Anyhow I recommend psc tanks. They go along perfectly with all of my BF infantry. I base them individually for battlegroup though....

Also I have to admit...not a big fan of psc "new gen Brit infantry". Very chunky to me. Not Terrible.....but....

Where do you live I'll post you my extras!

Edit..you prob wouldn't notice too much if you mixed them on flames of war multi bases.

The trick to the muzzle brake on the stug is remove the nodule on the barrel that (I think) is supposed to center the muzzle brake, it's too big and in the wrong spot anyway.

Then gently shave the base of the muzzle brake to sit reasonable flat....

....then use plastic cement plastic cement (vs superglue) lets you place the piece then move it around to get the positioning right. If it's sitting at an angle you can even use a little bit of force to smoosh the plastic and get it to sit flat because the plastic cement softens/melts the plastic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
I didn't have any problems with the assembly of the Shermans or the StuG's
I used testers and little clothes pins to secure them while drying.
Simple!

You really must be looking at different models to me, I used plastic glue and clamps and there's no way I could clamp out the huge misalignments The problem wasn't the gaps, it's that several panels on the M4A4 should meet flush with other panels and there were ~1mm off, which is a large amount on such a small tank


Anyway, back to the original topic. I've found some comparison pics of BF M4A4's and StuGs to PSC M4A4's and StuGs and to me they look close enough that you could easily use them in the same army if not the same platoon. With the infantry I think I'll just buy a box of panzergrenadiers and see how they look next to PSC models.