login   |    register

135
M1064A3


  • 009
  • 004
  • 006
  • 002
  • 008
  • 005
  • 007
  • 010
  • 001

About the Author

About Gino P. Quintiliani (HeavyArty)
FROM: FLORIDA, UNITED STATES

Retired US Army Artillery Officer, currently a contractor at MacDill AFB in the Tampa, FL area. I have been modelling for the past 35+ years, really seriously on armor and large scale helos (1/32, 1/35) for the last 30 or so.


Comments

Sweet Mortar Carrier Gino! I have been debating building this one myself. I am curious, was your base kit Tamiya's new M113A2 or was it the old M106 mortar carrier?? Again, looks great! Gary
JUN 18, 2006 - 10:53 PM
Very nice work Gino. I also have one of these that i am going ot use the MR models conversion. Is yours OOB? Regards from the Swamp Hawkeye
JUN 18, 2006 - 11:50 PM
Gino. Great job on this one. I am now motivated to buid my M106A1 that has been on my shelf forever! Mike (ex airborne light artillery)
JUN 19, 2006 - 08:09 PM
Greetings all, I must be missing something here, this is supposed to be a finished model - right - that was for entry in the May DMOM? Don't get me wrong, it looks like a great build, but it does not look finished to me! Am I missing something here, have I picked up this thread incorrectly? If it is only to display the build process, which looks great, fine. If it is to display the finsihed model well no, it doesn't do it for me, it's too perfect! Gino, I'm not having a go at the quality of your build, but these photographs do not show me a finished kit. There are no vehicle markings and there appears to be no real weathering on the kit. - That could be the photographs. This is a great build, but looks to me just like a model not the vehicle which it's supposed to represent. Does that make sense? I've looked at this post 5 or 6 times before I made these comments but that's how it looks to me. Still a great looking build - so far? Cheers Al
JUN 20, 2006 - 03:24 AM
You have to use the M106 kit as a base since you need the roof and hatches. It looks finished to me. Front and rear bumper number and some small decals. Paul
JUN 20, 2006 - 10:01 AM
Looks great even without decals. What paint/color did you use? I like the reddish quality to it and thought it might look good on a LRDG Chevy.
JUN 21, 2006 - 03:44 AM
With regards to the comments here about this being finished, I honestly think it looks very good. The weathering is there. It is subtle, but there never the less. As well, after looking at thousands of referance photos on OIF, I find that many modelers tend to "over weather" many of the new Sand colored vehicles. Many of the modlels are so dirty, they look as if they have been in battle for months without ever being cleaned or maintained. This is just not what I have observed in actual pictures;particularly in the middle through current stages of OIF. Most vehicles exhibit a predominant desert yellow color with minor signs of sand, drit, debris, exhaust, etc. Another thing to consider with this model is that it is a mortar carrier, and would not likely be exposed to front line fighting. This thing would likely be iun the rear or parked outside a city somewhere to provide fire missions to specific targets. it wouldnt look as dirty as say an AAVP7A1 that just drove 300 miles through the desert or through a brick wall. Well, those are my observations. I like it. Again, great job Gino!
JUN 21, 2006 - 05:13 AM
Well, I would not go so far to say these types of tracks would be less dirty. The mortar tracks were right up there w/ the main body and in one good example, at Objective Curly during the second thunder run of OIF1 they were right in the middle of it all, sitting on the road putting rounds down range (not that far down range though). Even rear echelon vehicle types get quite dirty. Just take a look at the HEMTTs and other support vehicles. They go through much of the same ground as the front line vehicles. Also, the dust clouds in those convoys are something to behold as I have witnessed at the NTC. Just driving around in a desert environment gets them dirty. Weathering is more a matter of taste. Either end of the spectrum can be correct. In OIF1 there was rain early in the campaign, so there are even opportunities for mud on vehicles. As both the Army and Marines got closer to Baghdad they stayed on roads moreofte, but not STRICTLY, so even in the later period of OIF1 the vehicles were plenty dirty. I have spoken to Gino about his weathering before, and he likes to take the equally correct stance of not so much mud and dirt, etc, since he likes to show off the vehicle itself (sorry Gino if I did not quite word your argument so well), and many of his builds are desk models for customers. Many times I do the same especially when I have done some detailing which I do not want to cover up. I for one do not think modelers overdo the weathering (maybe the chipping though - at times) as it looks cool, and many of us like to show vehicles and machines in their toughest environments, which includes dirt and mud. I think besides the "things go boom" cool factor, we like AFV modeling because these machines are TOUGH. What better way to show that than weathering the thing? Finally, be cognizant of the photo resolution when looking at whether a vehicle is clean or not. If you study most photos you will see at least subtle weathering all around a vehicle. At first glance the attached mortar track is not really dirty, but when you really look at it you can see the obvious dirty back ramp, but even the rain streaked fuel tank is evident and the tracks have dust in them as does the wire coil. If you were able to zoom in on this photo like I can you can see rain streaks all down the sides of this vehicle, and even some grey numbers in the Velcro square.
JUN 21, 2006 - 05:56 AM
Greetings all, As I said in my original post what you see may be affected by the photography. I've experienced the disappearing affect that taking a photo of a kit can have. I was stationed in the Middle East for 9 months and spent a further year in N Africa. Start the engine of any vehicle, go even a few miles and there will be dust just about everywhere, drive a tracked vehicle in convoy even on a hard surface and watch the dust storm rise. I think this is a great kit - better than anything I could build, but I still feel it looks like a model and not the real vehicle. If it has been build to be displayed in an office then it is probably perfect. However, it still looks too clean to me. That may just be my preference, I can see the subtle weathering, but in the desert even on a hard surface with no water/sewage puddles to drive through it's sill a bit too clean for me. As a mortar carrier it would be pretty much up close and personal, not too far behind the main body of troops, in fact probably mixed in with them. I'm not trying to wind anyone up here, those are just my thoughts and as I said in the orignal post, this might be down to the photography which does strange things to weathering or it may be my personal preference, but that's what I see. It's still a great kit. Cheers Al
JUN 22, 2006 - 01:22 AM
Thanks for the comments all. Just got back on the net after the PCS move to AL. As to the weathering, as Bob says above, I prefer light weathering. Also, it is washed out by the lights and photography. It is based on pictures of the actual vehicle, and looks very close. It is from a stateside deployment to NTC and was not in OIF, hence, no large tactical markings. I did convert the Tamiya M106A1, as you have to use the roof and some of the interior parts from it to make the mortar carrier version. It is made using the MR set, which was not too bad. I recommend it. It is painted using Testors Model Master Sand, FS 33531, a perfect match for modern CARC Sand.
JUL 01, 2006 - 08:25 AM