Landships II

That's great to hear. Did by chance you get the WW2 wagons as well? Wondering whether they could be of use for WW1, possibly after some carving.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the important (ie, hard to scratch-build) parts the same in that artwork? The tarp and the basic wooden body are the bits that have changed, and they would be straightforward to make if one was so inclined.

Naturally this would only count if one had bought a WW2 set and needed to convert it - why do that if you can buy the WW1 set!

Is this moulded in the polypropylene (is that the right one?) that they're said to use for their FT and so on?

Also, I've been wondering for a while how to pronounce the name: as a US firm, I would expect the umlaut to be superfluous - "hat" - but if not, it sounds rather unfriendly - "hate"; anyone know which is intended?

Well, indeed there's no direct equivalent, but we do change the spelling to "ae" to replace the umlaut.

As for "hayeet", that may be so in much of England, but I'm not English, so I say "hate" - just the one syllable 

Horse food.

haha! English is my native language, but only part of my blood - Scottish mother, English father (with Welsh ancestors), born North of the border. British, but not English.

It depends where you are in the UK whether you get something similar to the German, or whether you add extra syllables that shouldn't be there. I'm amused by the Collins Spanish-English dictionary, which discerns between American pronunciations and English ones (for Spanish-speaking readers), mentioning the "aah" sound that commonly appears where there should be "ar"  Ford tried to take advantage of this when they launched the KA, intending it to be pronounced "KAAH" as the English normally say "car", but I've heard more than one person talk about a Ford "Kay-Ay" without irony.

I suppose it depends on whether you take commonplace pronunciation to be correct, or consider that much of it's wrong and not to be replicated. Adding extra syllables into "gate" may be common throughout England (I'd need to think carefully about the other parts of the UK before commenting), but I consider it incorrect, just as I consider the fairly common Scots pronunciation of "film" as "fillum" to be wrong.

Coming back to the wagon, did you mean that the turning circle would be huge because the large diameter front wheels would not be able to turn through a large angle before fouling the bodywork, or is there another consideration I've missed?

-- Edited by TinCanTadpole on Wednesday 30th of May 2012 05:22:14 PM

-- Edited by TinCanTadpole on Wednesday 30th of May 2012 05:24:31 PM

The overall length is the same, but the wheelbase and tilt are longer. It looks as if the internal capacity was increased in the WWII version and the separate compartment for the fodder done away with. Need a WWII buff to clarify. With same-size wheels front and rear, the turning circle must have been enormous.

Returning briefly to the matter of diphthongs, the "ae" is a not altogether successful attempt to replicate the modifying effect of the umlaut (as are the even less successful "oe" and "ue"). The English diphthong is only one syllable but changes part-way through from one vowel sound to another. In the English "gate" you'll find the teeth start to close before you get to the "t". In the German "geht", the teeth stay open until the "t", so you get a pure vowel sound. Actually, German does have a small number of diphthongs (eu, au, etc) but they are constructed rather than quirks of pronunciation. I'm reasonably confident that Ironsides and some of our German friends will confirm.

None of which gets us any nearer to the answer. Since Mr. Tadpole is at least as reticent as HäT, we do not know if his native language might lend itself to German phonology.

Apologies for continuing the pronunciation debate, but I don't agree with you entirely James, about the morphing sound in "hate" or "gate". I'd say it is a local matter of pronunciation, rather than something standard in English; I don't think I do it, nor other Scots - we pronounce that sound more cleanly, I think. Some, perhaps many Irish do, but it is widespread in English regions - and of course the English make up the vast majority of Brits (something in excess of 50million out of 61-62million). Nonetheless, I don't consider it standard, just a matter of regional accents. Some of us speak with long vowels, some with short. Long vowels are often accompanied by morphing of the sound.

Getting back to thread, that's a good photo; it makes me wonder if the model has a slightly oversized box for the fodder?

-- Edited by TinCanTadpole on Thursday 31st of May 2012 03:48:38 PM

Hope these would help...

As I understand this wagon is an unrestored German WW1 vintage vehicle (including the painted up markings) It's from some private collection in the USA.

TinCanTadpole wrote:

---

the replacement of railings with fine wire, or are you happy with the plastic mouldings?

---

That's a long way in the future. Still trying to get the wheels on.

Point of minor interest: the fodder compartment seems to have been a framework with opening side, and the actual hay (or whatever it is that horses eat) carried in a wicker basket that slotted in. That's what it looks like in the photo. There's a challenge.

On the now very tiresome subject of phonetics, the point I am making is that Received Pronunciation (standard English) is riddled with diphthongs, so there is no equivalent of "ä". However, far more monophthongs have survived in many regional accents, so someone from, say, Burnley would automatically use them and reproduce the "ä" without having to make a conscious effort. Another example that springs to mind is the RP version of "know", which a Lancastrian would pronounce "nor" - a monophthong. You can probably think of examples nearer home.

Anyway, you will recall that all this started with your enquiry about the pronunciation of "HäT". I have it from the very highest authority that, for reasons I have undertaken not to disclose, speculation as to the pronunciation is entirely futile. But see Häagen-Dazs.

I trust this resolves the matter.

-- Edited by James H on Friday 1st of June 2012 01:17:19 PM

Pat wrote:

---

 You could try to use parts of the Ancient Britons wagon from Airfix or the Civil War accessoires from Imex

---

 Take into account that this texture is way too hoarse for a basket. The defenses on the Imex set, for instance, show a weaving of branches, not wicker: http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-U68234INP.jpg?size=67&uid=abd2b20c-218e-425c-a497-31cbfe7c8999

-- Edited by d_fernetti on Friday 1st of June 2012 05:41:16 PM

Often, in WW1 British airplanes, the pilots had wicker-woven seats. In 1/72 there are several methods to represent this, the most common nowadays is to get a brass part already etched with the woven texture like this: http://micklem.com/planes/camel/part-pe-detail.jpg

However, I find difficult that there's already someone doing aftermarket parts for Hät German Wagon kits. Other method to achieve this texture is to make a smooth surfaced "basket" and then slap on it a thickish coat of straw-yellow enamel. When it's almost dry (sticky!) score the surface with close paralell lines, enough to represent the wicker weavings. Let dry and you'll have an acceptable wicker basket in miniature.

Other option is to use Grosgrain ribbon which has a weaving texture that can pass for wicker in miniature. You would have to cut and paste small fragments of this ribbon over a "core" and then put it inside the wooden basket holder at the rear of the wagon. Quite a chore!

I'm still wondering... what would you use to represent 1/72 hay bales? polyester fuzz?

I suppose if you're feeling dedicated, you could always weave some threads to form a little mat, then glue it over sheet plastic. If you use two different thicknesses of thread - a normal thread and a heavy duty one - it might give the right sort of texture, and if the colour was chosen carefully, you might not need to paint it.

Not at all convinced by those pics, Pat. There are a couple that look okay for design, but they must be too big in the mesh for 1/72.

It looks as if a trip to Freiburg, Germany, would be a good investment, also if interested in artillery:

http://midosa.startext.de:8180/barch/MidosaSEARCH/PH24-21539/index.htm?kid=64691371-0421-4ee4-a1a3-2d04017702d6

The hubs seem OK. Haven't got round to finishing one yet, but the axles are are a bit fragile (which is to be expected, I suppose) and look over-long. Need to study photos before deciding what to do.

Indeed, the front axle seems too long, but the rear... was probably cut from the sprues too short!
One thing that always bothers me with small scale spoked wheels is that the spokes are never quite right, possibly because of limitations in the injection plastic technology. I doubt that they could cast the correct shapes (thin, tapering and sharp edges, well defined hubs, etc.) with plastic and still have a long mold life and a kit at a normal price. Wonder if "lost wax" molds for brass castings would be the answer for this.
BTW one thing that you might consider, if building these with the canvas top, is to fill a bit the inter-rib spaces, as the canvas seems to be made of stretch fabric!

On that subject, some of you may have encountered the old Esci - recently reissued by Italeri - 1/35 kits of German WW2 wagons, one an ambulance and the other a general service-equivalent wagon.

The ambulance (as a German friend once said about his pre-WW1 model planes) "ornates" my model cabinet, n problems there.

But the GS wagon got shoved into a box half made when I realised that the kit was trapezoidal in shape - i.e. the ends of the wagon body were different widths, so the sides weren't parallel. It didn't seem to be my modelling (!) as the tilt was also tapered. I couldn't confirm that at the time, in that pre-Internet era, but can anyone do so now/comment please? I'd like to be able to fish it out and finish it off - so much more typical than a Tiger tank, after all.