Stuff for Sale

This is an ongoing list of stuff which I’m clearing out.  Let me know if you’re interested in anything.  Prices are item cost, postage is extra.  I prefer to post to UK.  I can arrange delivery to some of the local shows.

Atlas 1/43 German SDK251 – new still in box £10

Painted Chaos Beastmen army (GW 28mm)

Largish Lizard man Army (GW 28mm) various stages of painting.  Figures generally from last 15 years.

Painted 28mm Early Imperial Roman army 80 infantry (5 units 16), 20+ cavalry. Various manufacturers – unknown (but not Perry,  not Warlord, not Foundry) £120

28mm Paper Models site

I wanted to quickly highlight the amazing resource which can be found at;

http://papermau.blogspot.com.br

There are some great buildings and vehicles available for 1/50 so suitable for 28mm wargaming.  I can see myself using them for zombie games but assume equally suitable for almost anything in the last 100 years.

These would be good for Malifaux or similar;

http://papermau.blogspot.com.br/2011/06/old-brazillian-sobrado-velho-sobrado.html

http://papermau.blogspot.com.br/2011/07/lakes-house-refuge-with-some.html

http://papermau.blogspot.com.br/2011/08/st-michael-old-chapel-by-papermau.html

Operation Nighthawk – London Calling, London Calling

A joint action with Phil Wynne

A recollection of an excellent weekend of big battle gaming for the liberation of Picardy to celebrate Phils Stag Do (wargamers style)

The Saturday morning dawned bright and clear and outside the Moredon Community Centre in North Swindon a cluster of cars gathered stuffed with figures, food, and terrain. It was the start of Phil’s Stag Do.

Perhaps we were overly ambitious and certainly naive in our expectations but hopefully we can help others learn from our mistakes and successes.

The intention was to run a two-day Flames of War event for friends as part of Phil’s Stag Do. It was intended to be a somewhat light hearted affair involving a dozen or so friends and relatives of Phil for two days of wargaming. His choice of game was Flames of War, which was fortunate due to the high level of support it had within our club. This also drove the period as being Late War Western Europe to guarantee the largest number of figures being available.

Initially we played around with the idea of lots of smaller games on Saturday feeding into a larger game on the Sunday. This slowly evolved into a desire to run one large continuous game over the two days. The only issue now was just how large a table could we have? There were various models which we looked at from the linear types employed by facilities such as the Wargames Holiday Centre with it’s large twenty seven foot by fifteen foot tables split by walkways, to simply having a very long six foot wide table. Eventually we tried to maximise the table space to get the largest dimension table in both directions. Given that the longest realistic reach for most of us is around three foot we would be constrained to a widest table of six foot. Our other constraints were that we only had twelve six by four foot tables as well as the general constraints imposed by the dimensions of the community centre which we would be using. Our final solution was a cross-shaped ‘double H’ giving us a table eighteen foot by twenty foot at its extremes. This gave us four ‘cockpits’ that poked into the table space that addressed the three foot stretch for the most part. We did unfortunately have two zones where we weren’t quite successful, but for the most part players managed to cope.

Operation Nighthawk Map Base

The next step was to identify who would be coming as well as what troops were available. The participants were to be a mix of FOW ‘experts’ (people who had played the game previously at least once) as well as some complete wargaming novices. During the planning we had invited around twenty people, but what with summer holidays and other commitments we secured fifteen giving us seven and eight a side. Given the access constraints this ultimately proved to be the right number for the space.

To limit the breadth of units joining the fray we restricted unit selection to Infantry units from the Fortress Europe book. Some players were picked to provide specific units for the game scenario. Players were asked to provide unit lists and troops for each side such that most would not know which side they were playing for until the day. The scenario was kept secret until the morning, as was the final player split between the two sides. Whilst the location was based upon a real location the actual battle was completely made up (as will become apparent).

The premise for the game was to set the battle in the region of Picardy where a famous café was located in Nouvion. Liberties were taken to enable the introduction of scenario items such as locating a Prisoner of War camp nearby, as well as a V2 Missile launch site. None of these scenario elements were to be revealed until the game was underway.

The scenery had been amassed over the preceding months, with friends commissioned to construct the more elaborate structures, so the first time most of it was seen was on the morning of the event as we set up the game area. The multitude of towns and villages were identified by dragon clips holding their names aloft.

An hour later the players started to assemble and were soon separated into their two sides;

 

Germans Allies
Paul Nettle (Heer CiC) Graham Philpot (British CiC)
David Wynne (Heer) Peter David (British)
Glenn Foden (Heer) Manuel Boissiere (British)
Sean Walker (Heer) Derek Whittenbury (British)
Vince Prince (SS CiC) James Furnel (US CiC)
Mark Dodridge (SS) Simon Day (US)
Peter Becket (Heer) EJ Hanneman(US)

Special Rules

We introduced a few specific rules for the scenario

  1. All divisional support armour assets were aggregated into units
  2. Germans started the game dug in
  3. All immobile and heavy artillery had double range
  4. Blimps stopped air attacks within 12 inches of their locations but could be attacked themselves
  5. No-go and blocked lines of sight zones were defined to account for the board shape
  6. Air support and intercept rules were altered

Every German player was given a specific simple set of individual orders which identified their objectives, though these were sometimes at odds with those of their colleagues or their commanders.

The Allies were handled slightly different with two different sets of orders being given to the British and US commands.

The Germans primary orders were to hold the Somme lines, whilst the Allies gained points for capturing the towns and villages north of the river.

Deployment for the two sides was fairly relaxed which may have contributed to one of the problems encountered at the end of the first day (more of that later).

Operation Nighthawk Deployment

After a lengthy preamble with delays due to players arriving late and setting their forces out the first turn finally kicked off at 11.30am. The intention was to carry on until 6.30pm before heading off for an evening meal.

As the day unfolded the Allies initiated their attacks across the Somme. Large scale infantry assaults were made with massive artillery support and localised armour support over the different river crossings.

The British also initiated their first airborne assault with gliders to the North West, much to the surprise of the German forces in that sector. The airborne assault involved Graham throwing four glider models from a short distance away from the board to see where his troops would deploy. Any gliders landing on top of another, or hitting significant terrain features resulted in a potential crash with the consequential loss of the troops in that glider. Unfortunately as a result of some bad throws Graham lost most of his 6lbs and half of his 17lb anti-tank units.

The day progressed with the Allies slowly edging their way across the river. About half way through the day we implemented a 10 minute time limit for each side’s movement to curtail the lengthy discussions which were constantly taking place. If there is anything we should have taken into consideration it was this, wargamers like to talk (and then talk some more). We probably should have instituted this, a lot earlier in the game.

Through the day the first batch of game scenario events took place.

  • POW Breakouts
  • French Gendarme
  • Resistance
  • The Nouvion residents
  • Nuns
  • Refugees
  • Indiana Jones and Jones Senior
  • The Italian armoured cars (under a certain Captain Alberto Bertorelli)

By the end of the first day we had only seen four turns completed so the Allies hadn’t been able to progress as far as had been anticipated as we had originally planned for six turns to have been finished by this time. As I mentioned the first two turns took far too long.

Operation Nighthawk End Day 1

As the day closed the Allies front line was determined by the umpire (Phil). This then became the line behind which the Allies could re-organise their troops. The German command then chose where they wanted to re-establish their front line, and were able to re-organise their troops behind that line. Any Anti-aircraft or heavy artillery which was redeployed would not start the next day dug-in.

Once the players had departed the umpires then moved some of the troops around to represent miss-communication between commands, as well as to facilitate the introduction of new scenario events for the second day. These included;

  • Blown bridges
  • Kelly’s Heroes and the bank job
  • Zombies
  • V2 Missile site

And well as continuing events from day one which included

  • POW Breakouts
  • French Gendarme
  • Resistance
  • Nuns
  • Refugees
  • Indiana Jones

Fresh armoured forces for both sides were also deployed. These were to represent Allied forces sent to exploit the cleared river crossings, whilst the Germans represented forces quickly sent to patch the holes and hopefully launch a counterattack.

Everyone then retired for the dinner to discuss the events of the day.

The second day opened with a zombie attack in those towns which had been the scene of heavy fighting the day before. (I hope by now you’ve gathered that this wasn’t a completely serious event, though this event did cause some bemusement among some of the Allied players). The strict time limits from the first day were again applied. Whilst this did catch some players out initially as they attempted to dash to the various sectors of the board in the time limit by the second turn many of them were delegating troop movements to other players close by.

The second turn saw an attempted German glider rescue of one of their high command who had been caught behind Allied lines.

Subsequent turns saw further Allied glider assaults into the NW as well as the NE sectors, as well as a lot of confusion caused by the resident nuns.

Soon after 4pm we brought the game to a close with a brief synopsis of the game and commentary by the principal commanders.

Operation Nighthawk End Day 2

At the end of the weekend I was shattered, and I hadn’t even been playing. Some of the players looked knackered having been dashing backwards and forwards and any which way around the vast table throughout the day.

I’d like to give a big thanks to everyone who took part and subjected themselves to our somewhat perverse sense of humour. Most of the things worked as anticipated such as the Resistance, Indiana Jones, and the glider assaults, however some things didn’t really add what we had really hoped to the game such as the escaping POWs. Some of the scenario events didn’t even have the opportunity to be implemented such as the Italian Armoured Cars (destroyed by the Germans in the opening turn) or Steve McQueen being captured as he left the POW camp. Some were simply stymied by the initial slow pace of the game which meant that the German glider rescue found itself not behind the Allied lines as originally planned, but actually on the front line.

All in all I believe that the game went very well but there were some lessons learnt which hopefully you’ll be able to benefit from should you ever undertake something similar. (None of this is really rocket science)

  1. Plan for players not attending, sometimes events happen which will stop players attending, so make sure that there are contingencies in place so that their absence doesn’t kill sections of the game.
  2. Implement strict time constraints for movement and firing. We effectively lost two turns from day one.
  3. Pre-plan forces and special events but be prepared to re-plan and compromise.
  4. Umpires need to make rules decisions to keep the game flowing. It is important that this is explained to the more rules aware players so that they are aware that it is more important to keep the game moving than it is to get every rule interpretation absolutely correct.
  5. Players need to call for umpire decisions quickly where player discussions are delaying play.
  6. Players need to be made aware of the expectations on them to delegate responsibility of parts of their forces to other players to keep the game moving.
  7. Label troops so that other players can quickly determine troop types and support delegated play. In the main this was OK, but in those situations where troops were substitutes for others, or could cover a variety of troop qualities it became an issue.
  8. Stress that a 10am start is a 10am start…

The Curious Dilemma of Wargamers – (A light hearted look at something few wargamers ever acknowledge)

There is an Elephant in the room

Or acknowledging that there is a problem

I expect that I am similar to most wargamers in that I have multiple projects on the go at any one time. Maybe like me you also have many projects which were never quite finished which are languishing in that purgatory zone of almost finished projects, there are also some which barely got started, and others which are your real passion and focus. However there are always more glittering projects out there to lure us in, and how many of us are really able to resist the temptation? Of course if we hold back and ignore those ‘voices’ and rationalize the decision we should in all honesty resist, but how many of us are that strong (or even take the time to rationalize what we’re doing)?

As wargamers (please allow me to generalise) we tend to focus our ‘rationalization’ on the visible aspects of the implications of our hobby such as storage issues or lead piles for painting. We are perpetually seeking means to store our massive collections of painted figures/unpainted lead (please delete as appropriate) – planning garage or attic conversions, larger sheds, or even moving house. At the same time we are also trying to work out how we will ever get them all painted. I appreciate that many tell themselves sweet little lies that they’ll be able to finish them when they retire, but how many of us in all honesty will ever live to 150! What we all seem to avoid dwelling upon is when are we ever going to play with these figures?

 

Quantifying the Problem

I assume that I’m not alone in having a limited amount of time to commit to wargaming. How I spend that time is then constrained by the demands of family life. Whilst I’m able to fit reading into odd free minutes here or there, my painting time is slightly more constrained to where I am and whether I have sufficient time to actually achieve anything. My gaming time though is really constrained. Previously I could plan to get to about forty club evening s a year, this year due to my wifes work commitments this number has been reduced. Gaming colleagues face other constraints imposed by their own working situations with shift work curtailing their opportunities quite significantly. On top of the weekly sessions I can probably count of one weekend day a month for either shows or gaming.

Now this might sound like a lot of game opportunities but think what is actually represents for your various collections of soldiers. How many armies do you actually have? How many armies are you working towards completing? Now do a simple calculation, divide the number of armies by the number of games which you are likely to have this year. This gives you the average number of games which each of your armies will be played with in the next year. Now, I admit that I’m stating the bloody obvious, but how many of us actually quantify this thing which we all diligently avoid asking? Now consider that we all have favourite armies and rule sets, so we bias the number of games which those specific armies get played with, the unfortunate thing is that this reduces the likelihood of us ever playing with the other armies. Consider your own collection, how many boxes don’t even get opened in any given year? How much invested time and effort is that simply languishing away in a box gathering dust? What are we actually holding onto those figures for? Do we kid ourselves that rules for those armies will become the vogue again and we can pull those armies back out of retirement? I have armies for Slaughterloo which haven’t been touched for over a decade but I am still loath to get rid of them. Do I still hold onto them for fear of realising the loss I will have made on the figures as the figures have little value in todays wargaming market (is it ever likely that we’ll see a resurgence in interest in fantasy Napoleonics?). Do I have that much storage space available that I can afford to simply let these armies consume shelf space?

There are of course certain armies which we hold onto for sentimental reasons. I have an old Games Workshop Dark Elf army which dates back to around 1983. This was the first army I started collecting all those years ago under the guidance of Mike Carson (then Captain Carson) in the embracing confines of the Duke of Yorks Royal Military School wargames club. I have managed to let go of many armies through my life, but this one is a keeper even though it may only see the table once a year. There are many other armies which I have been seduced by over the past four decades which don’t have that sentimental hold though, so why do I still hold onto them? Do I believe that they will suddenly acquire significant second hand value, that they will become ‘collectable’ and desirable to figure aficionados out there? It does happen, every so often something seems to catch peoples romantic imagination, and suddenly in a rare incidence specific figures become the current ‘must have’ and increase in significant value. But who am I kidding? Whilst I might see some early classic figures rise in value, why would I ever expect the same to happen to my second edition plastic Games Workshop lizardmen figures? Games Workshop through their effective release strategy of making anything old redundant in the new version of the rules has all but made any second hand value for these figures little more than scrap value. I can understand their business strategy; I just can’t understand my reluctance to part with these figures.

So let me try and rationalize my own situation.

This year I believe that I will likely get to my local wargames club about 35 times ( allowing for holidays, work and other family commitments), as well as occasionally the other player having to cancel at the last moment due to similar commitments. I will also likely play around a further 10 evenings through the year outside the club. I also can get along to around 5 of the clubs Sunday events. I am fortunate to have friends around the country who also run other wargaming events which I attend, so around another 5 day events. In straight wargaming incidents this is around 55 times a year. Now I do have a fair selection of armies across a multiple of periods and scales. Some of those armies I even play multiple rule systems depending upon the time available and the scale of the battle which we’re playing, so let’s try and keep this simple and suggest that I have only ten armies (now consider how many armies you really have….)

So 55 incidences spread across ten armies allows for each army to be played with a total of 5 and a half times a year. However the spread is never that even. Consider certain armies can only really be used on big tables for longer gaming sessions. 28mm Napoleonics using GDB or Republic to Empire (or dare I suggest Grand Manner) really warrant larger tables that aren’t really available in the space constrained club evenings. Also given the tendency for the games to take slightly longer just with the logistics of the volume of terrain and troops it isn’t really viable to consider these for my normal weekly games, so these will be constrained to the weekend and holiday events. Given that these are likely to be the larger cash investment passion projects which may have originally been one of the key attractions to wargaming it is unlikely that I could ever convince you to give up on these armies. So remove one army from the mix for consideration (but who really has only one large passion project?)

So let us assume that the larger army projects will probably take up half of our available weekend slots. That leaves around 52 sessions for our other armies. Now if your club is like ours then there will be various club campaigns running throughout the year. If we assume that each of these will consume 8 of our gaming sessions, and that I’ll be involved in three campaigns with only three armies, I’ve just committed a further 24 sessions, so now I only have 28 sessions to use the remaining 6 armies, so roughly 4.5 games apiece. Given my bias towards certain of my armies this means that my 28mm Hittites or my 28mm 30 Years War Imperialists will tend to see the table more often, let’s say 8 times each. Now I only have 12 sessions to spread the other 4 armies across for 3 games each.

This all of course assumes that you always use your own figures. I often play a game using a friends figures where they provide the forces for both sides. Usually it’s a period or scale which I don’t have figures for and they’ve prepared an interesting scenario to play. These probably account for a handful of games a year, but will reduce the number of sessions where you can use your own figures. However I find that I run similar games providing both sides figures so it probably evens out over the year.

OK, so this is being somewhat cold and clinical and definitely not in the spirit of wargaming but it does question our perpetual desire to expand the frontiers of our wargaming experience without really questioning when if ever we’re going to play with our new toys.

So with only a conservative 10 armies and a fairly large opportunity for gaming through the year some of these armies will barely see the table. Now consider how many armies you really have (you have to be honest). I recently did a list and found that I had a lot more (a lot, lot more). Many were armies which had seen a lot of use in years long since passed and do occasionally still make it to the table, however there are those which were bought as part of a club euphoria in response to the latest craze and no sooner had I painted them and played with them a few times than the craze had passed. Now they simply languish in their Really Useful box on my dedicated storage solution taking up increasingly valuable space.

 

Is there a solution? (or shooting the Elephant)

It would be wrong for me to suggest that I have the answer and have followed it diligently to find the wargaming nirvana which I’ve implied exists. In fact I am probably the person to not listen to and do the opposite to what I practice. However if I was to put some suggestions out there which I promise I will actually consider myself then perhaps these will help;

Ask yourself ‘Do you actually need to buy the figures?’

  1. Is this an impulse purchase? Was it simply seeing those shiny new figures painted up beautifully in that display stand whilst you have the cash in your pocket? How quickly can you get them to the table or will the interest wane as you realise that getting your figures to look like those in the cabinet will take an age? Do you know others in your club who you could play with or are you going to have to consider buying two armies? Ultimately ask yourself are you really interested in this army beyond this initial fascination? Have you been interested in this period prior to this and so this purchase would be a logical progression?
  2. Is this because of an enthusiastic friend? How often do you lured into a project by a friend? Those fateful words “wouldn’t it be great if we did…(you fill in the period), we could each get an army…” A couple of hundred pounds later and many more hours dutifully painting them up only to find that your friends enthusiasm was side tracked by another great project along the way. Now to either find another friend to play, or buy a second army.
  3. Is this because of a new set of rules which are all the rage? I’ve mentioned my Flintloque Slaughterloo armies, but I’ve also succumbed to other crazes, including Dystopian Wars, Warmachine, Secrets of the Third Reich, among others. The difficulty is identifying if this is a one night stand, or whether the game will stay the course of time. I had thought that Flames of War was going to be one such fad, but in our club at least it’s still going on strong all these years later, whilst Warhammer Ancients had a fair degree of traction for the best part of a decade right up until Games Workshop pulled the rug on Warhammer Historical and the game has all but disappeared. Ask yourself, does this army/period interest you beyond these new rules? Is your interest more that the game mechanics? If it is then the army will find life in other rule systems. My 28mm Ancients now have found a home in Clash of Empires and Hail Caesar, whilst my 28mm Russians from Secrets of the Third Reich have been fleshed out (so the speak) and used for Bolt Action. Some armies though are just too specific and therein lays the risk.
  4. Is this being driven by the lure of free figures? Beware the friend baring free figures.       Just ask a few friends in the Swindon and District (SAD) Wargamers. What initially looks like a friendly gesture soon becomes a costly investment as you seek to ‘finish off’ that free army. Both Paul Nettle and Andy Cummings have tales of the hidden cost of those free figures.
  5. Is this because you want to share a friends passion? All too often I’ve been introduced to a period by a friend. They have had a beautiful set of armies and their enthusiasm was infectious. Before I knew it I was looking at figure catalogues and visiting traders at shows working out an army. Step back and ask yourself whether you need to buy these figures to share your friends games? Quite often I’ve found that these friends are very happy for you to use their figures in the games as you are giving them the opportunity to play a period which they are passionate about. In a similar manner I can reciprocate with friends for those periods which I’m interested in and can provide the various forces needed.       I really enjoy playing 15mm modern games with a friend but I don’t share his enthusiasm and so don’t really need to buy an army (as I constantly keep reminding myself).       Equally I’m happy to run games using my 28mm Indian Mutiny forces and don’t expect anyone else to rush out and buy figures just to be able to play. Just how many Indian Mutiny armies does one club need?       How many versions of the Alamo or the European Legation in Peking are really necessary? If someone has a passion you can support it but you don’t necessarily need to follow it.
  6. Do I really need another army in this period? If I’m the only person with an interest in a period such as the American War of Independence then I should probably expect to end up buying two armies for the period to be able to get the games. However if the period is one of the broader periods such as Biblical or Classical Ancients the number of potential armies is almost boundless. Without applying some constraints the lure of new armies can pull us down a long dark road (one which I’m currently travelling so you are quite welcome to join me). I’ve tried limiting myself to matched armies such as Greeks and Early Archaemenid Persian but soon found myself justifying other protagonists such as Carthaginians, Libyans, and Italian States as I explored my enthusiasm for ancient Sicilian wars. My first Assyrian army soon expanded to allow for New Kingdom Egyptians, which soon ‘flexed’ to bring in the Hittites, the Sea Peoples, and most recently the Mittani. The question is do I need any more armies? What do the new armies bring?       Couldn’t I just use my existing armies and proxy them in to cover those which I don’t have? (Sacrilege I know but a point to seriously consider).

 

So what next?

Now none of these ideas are rocket science but simply a means to re-evaluate your investment decisions (an unfortunately cold term for what is fundamentally the decision to buy toy soldiers). As I said, I might talk a good talk, but I have only really just started to try and walk the walk. I’m not going to start a campaign t o change peoples minds and this defiantly isn’t something which I’ll get fervently passionate about. I will likely fall off this wagon more times than not, I am after all a wargamer.

Warren Gleeson is a recovering wargamer and has a large collection of armies which he irrationally still holds onto. He is easily persuaded by glitzy magazine advertising, TMP promotions, and more recently by Kickstarter funding initiatives. Please help Warren and others similarly afflicted like him. Don’t forward them any promotions for new ranges, don’t suggest new periods for the clubs next campaign, and definitely don’t feed them free figures.

OK, so who am I trying to kid? Ignore everything which I’ve said and fill your boots. Pass on those adverts and club campaign ideas, and don’t forget to send those free figures. I probably have room to store them somewhere, and I’m sure that I’ll play with them eventually, at least sometime before I die.

Chain of Command – another outing

Phil and I had another go with Chain of Command.  This was only Phils second game, and whilst I’ve had probably 6 games it has been a while since I last played so mistakes were made and I found myself referencing the rules quite often.  It probably wasn’t helped by us both playing Bolt Action a few weeks ago.

The game was a simple scenario between a German Rifle platoon played by Phil and a US Armoured Rifle platoon commanded by me.  Given the ratings of each side the Germans had an additional 4 points to choose.  When the force points were rolled for the scenario the US got a further 3 points whilst the Germans were increased by 1 to a total of 5.  This meant that the force selection was fairly quick.

The game was played across hedge lined fields interspersed with rural roads and the odd wall and building.  The Germans were on the defensive and deployed their scouting markers a little over a foot into the table.  The Americans came in from the table edge and had 3 scouting moves before the Germans became active.  I quickly locked down Phils German scouting markers but through some poor forward thinking I wasn’t able to really exploit this advantage.

PAW 2015 (7th/8th Feb) – Plymouth

Just a heads up for one of the earlier shows next year (2015) in Plymouth.  This is Plymouth’s annual wargames show with some 40 traders, including a bring and buy and plenty of tournaments. www.paw2015.co.uk

Tournaments include;

  • Warhammer 40K
  • Warhammer Fantasy
  • Warmachine
  • Field of Glory Ancients 15mm. 800 points
  • Field of Glory Ancients 25mm. 650 points
  • Saga Dark Ages 28mm
  • Bolt Action 28mm

Full entry details on the show website : http://www.paw2015.co.uk/index.php/competitions.html

All Quiet on the Martian Front – HMLS Bodger gets it’s first coating

I gave the landslip it’s first undercoat and base paint layer.  A Pritt Stick funnel has been added.  I’ve used it upside down so that the lid can be glued to the ships hull but allows the majority of the ‘funnel’ to be removed for storage.

2014-12-07 17.59.02

The landslip was sprayed with a generic car grey undercoat, and then given an Armour Green top coat using the Plastic Soldiers Company Armour Green spray paint.

There is still a fair bit of detail required along with weathering.  Here the stairs and railings are being added.  Windows still need to be added.

2014-12-07 20.06.10

All Quiet on the Martian Front – HMLS Bodger

HMLS Bodger has slowly taken shape.

2014-12-07 09.48.30

The side sponson turrets are based around the top of the old GW hexagon paint pot lids.  I used the hinge as the gun attachment as it looked like something which swivelled up and down.  There are two of these on each side of the land ship.

The wheels were liberated from a broken Playmobil crane.

2014-12-07 15.59.44

The two main turrets were made slightly differently.  The main turret is a cream jar which is screwed into a hole cut into the hull.  This allows the turret to turn simply by screwing/unscrewing the turret slightly.  The turret at the front is a hazelnut spread jar lid.  It was originally constructed with a card sleeve which went around the lid and allowed the gun to rotate.  Unfortunately it became stuck during the painting so no longer rotates (something to correct in future incarnations)

Early pictures with a tripod to give some sense of scale.  the surplus parts from the US tanks were put to good use as doorways and panels, as well as additional small gun ports around the side and front of the ship.

2014-12-07 09.49.46

2014-12-07 09.50.27

2014-12-07 09.50.57

2014-12-07 09.51.30

The central tower takes shape.  This dismantles to fit into the storage box.  The gun barrels were made from either plastic toy arrows cut up, biro tubes, or biro casings.

2014-12-07 15.02.47

Confirmation of the landslip at home within a 9 litre Really Useful Box.

2014-12-07 15.03.41

2014-12-07 15.03.54

2014-12-07 15.04.12

I’ll try and get the templates for the hull and tower up shortly as a Powerpoint slide or pdf.