Our friends over at Plusmodel have come up with a nice addition to any US figures build or diorama for anyone who has ever humped a ruck: a nifty set of U.S. WWII-era rucksacks for your 1/35 GIs to moan about.
the set
The set includes eight pieces in a light gray resin, four of the M-1936 Field Bag made of what I am guessing is canvas rather than the rubberized version.
the review
Two of the bags have the resin pour plug on the bottom, and provide nice strap detail on the back side. The other pair have the pour plug on the back and therefore have no detail there. In any case, the four are very well done, much nicer than the Verlinden, DML, Tamiya, or other versions that I have in my stash.
The other four pieces are of various rucksacks, or field packs, that GIs typically carried. One is the M-1944-M-1945 Combat & Cargo pack combination; a second is the M-1928 Haversack. The other two pieces are the JQD 88B Mountain rucksack; one has the frame and one appears to have the frame absent. Just like the musette bags noted above, the level of detail in each of these pieces is first-rate.
conclusion
If you are looking for a few really nice extras to add to your next diorama or figure vignette, these little gems are easily up to the task. A bit of paint, a light wash and a bit of detail or drybrushing and you should be quite happy with the result.
Thanks to Plus Model for the review sample. Be sure to mention you saw the item reviewed here on Armorama when ordering.
SUMMARY
Highs: Beautifully detailed pieces. Some show really nice strap detail on the front, as well as the back of the bag. Lows: A bit pricey when you consider that half of the pieces are the small M-1936 Musette bag. Verdict: Very nice addition that can really dress up a diorama or vignette.
Our Thanks to Plus Model! This item was provided by them for the purpose of having it reviewed on this KitMaker Network site. If you would like your kit, book, or product reviewed, please contact us.
About Rick Cooper (clovis899) FROM: CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES
I have been modeling for about 30 years now. Once upon a time in another century I owned my own hobby shop; way more work than it was worth. I tip my opti-visor to those who make a real living at it. Mainly build armor these days but I keep working at figures, planes and the occasional ship.
From what I can see, they look good. Would be nice if we knew which was which as I am no expert on them. Defenitly something I would p/u. Problem is the armorama mark across them. I understand using it on printed material so people can't copy others work for free, but the question is, is it nessesary for a 3 demensional product that can't be used except as picture referance. It does block out a bit of detail as the photos are preety small.
Hi, Bob, increasingly we're finding our news and review photos turning up on blogs and other sources without permission and without credit. While it's somewhat intrusive, I think the watermark effect allows us to protect our material (and that of the reviewer) while allowing you to see the details well enough to make a purchase decision. Considering that I have to "hand" watermark each photo using PhotoShop, I would just as soon NOT do it, but there's no avoiding it.
It really has gotten bad suddenly, I'm not sure why.
I will make sure to lighten the watermark a little further next time. It's at 30% now, so I'll try 20%. If I put the mark below, then the offending parties just crop it out.
Sorry for the smallish pics. I just replaced a broken digital camera and still had not quite figured out the whole sizing thing. Man, I hate learning curves!!
Rck
Comments