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.

I'm not sure of the scale - probably quite large. This is a great piece of work!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17680560@N03/sets/72157602900373935/

There is just too much stuff on that diorama. Although i'm sure it looks much better in person its just too cluttered to get a good look at anything.

I'm wondering why there are Waffen SS in Stalingrad? Know your history before you make a historical diorama!

Have to agree that there is too much stuff on the diorama. If you look at the Flikr gallery, it's almost impossible to determine what you're looking at. I'm sure it would look much better in person.

The second picture I looked at stopped me in my tracks and I'm not bothering to finish the set.



Sorry. Nebelwerfer and PaK.40 in that close proximity? Not on your life. The PaK.40 crew would be blinded, choked, deaf and/or plain dead after a couple salvos from that Nebel. Plus, let's go through all the trouble of concealing that monster of an AT-gun in rubble and then place a frikken NEBELWERFER right next to it. If you've never seen footage of a Nebelwerfer firing, you can't possible understand what I'm saying here.

Ruined my hopes for some yummy WWII goodies on the second picture.

Fail.



Ghidorah

ARRRGHHH!!!
I couldn't resist. After thinking about the ludicrousness of the pic I linked above, I had to go back and see what other historical facts he took liberties with.

1) Tiger tanks. Russians hadn't seen a Tiger until '43.

2) T-34/85s. '85s weren't even manufactured until 1943. In '42, Russian tank designers were just trying to catch up with the effectiveness of the German Panzer's 75L gun. It wasn't until '43 that they widened the turret ring to fit a larger gun (and turret) to deal with Panthers and Tigers.


Boo on this diorama.
Yay for historical gaming snobbery!



Ghidorah

tigers were used in russia in 1942 towards the later half of the year, and then only up near lenningrad where they were a failure because they couldnt be deployed enmasse, i dont recall reading of tigers being used anywhere near stalingrad until after it fell in 1943.

*raises eyebrows*

I guess they got the number of buttons on the cuffs wrong as well... so that clearly invalidates the impressive spectacle of all that work and attention to modelling detail!

Sorry for wasting 30 seconds of your obviously so-valuable lives

Osbad wrote:*raises eyebrows*

I guess they got the number of buttons on the cuffs wrong as well... so that clearly invalidates the impressive spectacle of all that work and attention to modelling detail!

Sorry for wasting 30 seconds of your obviously so-valuable lives

What attention to detail? Should modelling a thrilling scene take priority over historical accuracy in 'military modelling'? Hell, who cares that a scene supposely set in 1942 has the double error of Tiger tanks sporting zimmerit. Why not have Genghis Khan or King Arthur wading in as well?

Ok, you could pick apart the historical accuracy all day, but on the face of the modelling, I have to say it's not of a particularly high standard. It's an epic scene, but when looking closely there's so little highlighting and shading done on the figures of the scene and, considering all the mud and snow around, no weathering, only copious amounts of blood everywhere.

It is way to busy,it is a nice diorama but maybe it would have looked better if so much wasn't going on?

Osbad wrote:*raises eyebrows*

I guess they got the number of buttons on the cuffs wrong as well... so that clearly invalidates the impressive spectacle of all that work and attention to modelling detail!

Sorry for wasting 30 seconds of your obviously so-valuable lives

While it is quite a lot of work, it's not to a particularly high modeling standard either. Why is there snow on all the terrain and odd parts of the artillery, but all the troops uniforms are clean (except for the oddly bloodied dead troops?) It's way too busy overall, and even ignoring the historical inaccuracies (which are pretty blatant to even a novice WWII buff) the tanks aren't all that well done. They also suffer from the "too busy" syndrome the entire diorama suffers from.

It is one hell of an effort, but there's just a lot of things wrong about it.

5/5 for effort
2/5 for sloppy painting
-1/5 for Historically wrong

Is this definately supposed to be a Stalingrad scene because there's a lot of post '42 kit? Are the Flickr tags just wrong?

I like the Pea Dot Autum cammo in the Winter scene. ;p Seconded on the Fail. Great project for a 12-year-old with all the blood and guts; but not much more than that. Kinda had to snicker when the creator credited himself with the 'historical' research he put into the project.

Scale is 1:35 seeing as most of the models are from Tamiya. Inaccuracies aside a lot looks somewhat fake and poorly posed. The Stalingrad diorama made me flinch (Panzerschreck?!) but the Normandy diorama that had a M26 Pershing driving about really made me snap my own neck in an absurdly harsh flinch.


Aha, this guy belongs to the team that did the Faces of War game for the PC. Explains a whole lot. He also claims to have put a gakload of research into each diorama.

BrookM wrote:Aha, this guy belongs to the team that did the Faces of War game for the PC. Explains a whole lot. He also claims to have put a gakload of research into each diorama.

You mean an adult made this? I don't want to be unpleasant but I rather grew out of the habit of throwing just any old kits together in various paint schemes to make scenes, and covering everyone in grotesque amounts of blood, by the time I got into my teens.

I got to chime in here. I give the guy props for "trying". I mean it's obvious that he put a lot of work into that dio. The problem is, he just tried to do too much, and maybe got in over his head. If you look at the verlinden dioramas, less usually equates to more.


GG

This guy just bought random Tamiya and Dragon kits, built them as shown on the box and threw everything together on the tables. It's probably more of a "this looks cool with that" mentality than the die-hard "I have an iron cross on the wall for my dedicated history skills" that most people have.

Maybe he worked off the Flames of War army lists as his "research"?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Maybe he worked off the Flames of War army lists as his "research"?

FoW's research is light years ahead of this.

[edit] actually got to look at the Flickr account, such a waste of all that effort.

George Spiggott wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Maybe he worked off the Flames of War army lists as his "research"?

FoW's research is light years ahead of this.

QFT

Battlefront does a pretty good job when it comes to historical research.

FoW does a great job and at least they aren't elitist about it.

BF does some research, but the FoW lists are also permissive, in that you can make a non-historical list just as easily as a historical one.

Hence, my comment above.

You want intensive research in a WWII rules set, get your hands on some Battleground WWII by the now defunct Easy Eight's Productions. Amazing depth while not being all overbearing in minutia.

Ever wanted to know just how lopsided an encounter the US had when their Shermans ran into a Tiger in a village? Set a Tiger vs. 4-5 Shermans in a scenario with BGWWII rules and you will see it as close as you can without having been there.

I've played or read through many different WWII rules sets and Battleground WWII was the best WWII game system I have come across.

Its a shame they went belly up.

Interesting fact:
A one-time friend of mine, Joe Krone, former head of Chicago Battle Bunker and a buddy of his were looking into buying the rights to that game system from Easy Eights when they went under.



Ghidorah

@OP: I've noticed the typo in the thread name. Who is this "Stanling" that got a city named after him?

despite errors, wow, that's one hell of a diorama!

BrookM wrote:@OP: I've noticed the typo in the thread name. Who is this "Stanling" that got a city named after him?

OHHHHHHHH!!!! That changes EVERYTHING!

Here I am , picking apart this guy's historical inaccuracies in his Stalingrad diorama. I didn't realize that it was the STANLINGRAD diorama we were supposed to look at.



Ghidorah
who feels like a todd now.

Ghidorah wrote:

BrookM wrote:@OP: I've noticed the typo in the thread name. Who is this "Stanling" that got a city named after him?

OHHHHHHHH!!!! That changes EVERYTHING!

Here I am , picking apart this guy's historical inaccuracies in his Stalingrad diorama. I didn't realize that it was the STANLINGRAD diorama we were supposed to look at.



Ghidorah
who feels like a todd now.

See, not so hot now eh? Mr "I know my Panther from my Panzer" Hot Shot ...

JohnHwangDD wrote:BF does some research, but the FoW lists are also permissive, in that you can make a non-historical list just as easily as a historical one.

Hence, my comment above.

True but FoW does a stirling job of bringing historical gaming to the casual gamer who wants to play a game in a matter of hours as opposed to days, doesn't want to spend endless hours referring to a rulebook and couldn’t give two figs about the difference between the various turrets. Like it or not these gamers are the rule today not the exception.

I for one am glad that FoW has started to bring Historical gaming away from its image of stuffy, elitist cardigan wearing old men for whom the "simution" has generally been more important that the "game".

I can't remember which forum I read this on, so apologies if its someone here but the best way to sum up FoW is:

"If you play 2 games using identical forces, one with FoW and the other with Firefly (A set of WW2 rules which are mind bogglingly detailed, dreadful to read and a staple of old-school gaming) Chances are the results of both games will be the same, except the FoW will take a quarter of the time and involve one tenth of the hassle."

Long live FoW.

Well done Osbad, I thought it was fab anyway.


Owen