Every few years, I invite readers and colleagues to contribute guest columns in the series Technology and my Hobby/Passion. Over a hundred contributed in the last decade on their birding, charities, cooking, music, sports and every other passion, and how it keeps evolving with technology. Click here and scroll down to read them all.
This time it is Dennis Howlett, recently retired from Diginomica, which he co-founded.
He is a repeat contributor to this series. Twelve years ago, it was about home brewing. This time, it is just as exotic - scale modeling - mostly tanks and armored vehicles in his case:
At the end of February 2021, after 51 years working, the last eight of which felt like 24x7x365, I retired. Planning for that event was two years in the making, part of which included picking up a hobby I left behind almost 50 years ago - scale modeling.
As a Baby Boomer, the second World War was merely 15 years past when I started modeling. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the kit choices available in the UK were Airfix or Revell, predominantly in 1/72 scale, often British and German aircraft with some historic ships like the Cutty Sark and HMS Victory thrown in for good measure. Tamiya, which today is one of the most popular kit makers, only started issuing plastic scale kits in 1960. Firms like Dragon, ICM, RyeField Model, and many others would come much later.
Back in the '50s and '60s, modeling was very much a child's thing, aimed towards education rather than a craft. Over the years, things have changed out of all recognition. Coming back into the hobby, I was amazed at the advances made in kit quality and the technology available to hobbyists. If you're so inclined today, there is no limit to feeding your imagination or the amount of time and money you can put into the hobby. It's not unusual to buy a kit for $50 and then spend twice that amount on aftermarket components and paint. Sounds a bit like your ERP project - right?
Why scale modeling for someone like myself who's spent a lifetime applying what passes for gray matter? The answer comes in three parts:
First, my father, brother and, son are (or were) artists in their different ways. At the risk of sounding boastful, my father was a world-class mechanical engineer, handcrafting satellite components that are still flying after 30 years. My brother designs and builds some of the world's most sought after ukuleles at prices to match. My son is a top-grade cabinet maker and graphic artist. Me? Art is something I buy. But modeling provides a ready-made, almost paint by numbers canvas on which I can pretend that I am making art.
Second, I'm a lifelong learner, and the prospect of retirement without learning was abhorrent to me and stamp collecting or flower pressing don't cut it.
Third, and building on the learning theme, my father was a 'tanker' at the end of WWII and part of the British Army Of the Rhine, stationed for years in northern Germany in the immediate post-war period. In common with many others of his generation, he never talked about what happened except for the fun parts. At school in the 1960s, history stopped at 1914. If you look at the 1914-45 period, it represented an explosion in military technology. So for me, that period represents a black hole but in which there is a strong family connection.
Here are three models of different vintages:
British RNAS WW I armored car
German Panzer 38(t) tank
Soviet JS-2 tank
Today, with YouTube, podcasting, and other media, there is a wealth of content available that helps contextualize the military machines used in the last two world wars, providing excellent insights into how technology, economics, leadership, and politics played into the outcomes of those tragic conflicts.
For instance, modern historians argue that a critical reason Germany lost WWII lay in its inability to standardize armor production. At the same time, the Soviets churned out 'good enough' armor by the tens of thousands. Germany often over-engineered (but under-designed) their armored vehicles, while the Soviets built theirs with a clear, practical expectation of utility at a bargain-basement price. German leadership constantly tinkered with designs, the Soviets had no such issues. The good news for modelers is that Germany's approach is reflected in the bewildering array of panzer variants available today in kit form. I know of a Canadian modeler whose obsession is the Stug III and he has more in his collection than anyone else I have come across. His knowledge is encyclopedic on this subject.
But wait a minute. If you're in high technology today, doesn't that interpretation pf how armor was developed and deployed sound a tad familiar? Check out this tidbit from Dwight D. Eisenhower that talks to emerging technology from the perspective of someone who had an itch to scratch.
Complicating the problem of the breakout on the American front was the prevalence of formidable hedgerows in the bocage country.
Our tanks could help but little. Each, attempting to penetrate a hedgerow, was forced to climb almost vertically, thus exposing the unprotected belly of the tank and rendering it easy prey to any type of armor-piercing bullet. Equally exasperating was the fact that, with the tank snout thrust skyward, it was impossible to bring guns to bear upon the enemy; crews were helpless to defend themselves or to destroy the German.
In this dilemma an American sergeant named Culin came forth with a simple invention that restored the effectiveness of the tank and gave a tremendous boost to morale throughout the Army.
It consisted merely in fastening to the front of the tank two sturdy blades of steel which, acting somewhat as scythes, cut through the bank of earth and hedges. This not only allowed the tank to penetrate the obstacle on an even keel and with its guns firing, but actually allowed it to carry forward, for some distance, a natural camouflage of amputated hedge!
How often do we see this today in the world of high technology innovation? I used to hear such stories frequently so, in a sense, modeling feeds into my understanding of how innovation evolves or revolutionizes situations in the real world.
Here's another more rudimentary example and comparison. During WWII, Germany was afraid that its enemies would use magnetic mines to destroy its tanks. It invented a factory-applied coating called Zimmerit, which was supposed to solve the expected problem. It added to cost but turned out to be a solution looking for a problem that didn't materialize to any great extent.
On the other hand, the Soviets and Americans had good reason to fear the panzerfaust with its ability to knock out armor at short range, as used in urban warfare. The solution? Bedspring armor where bedspring frames were commandeered and welded to the turret and sides of tanks, areas which are vulnerable to panzerfaust attacks. Simple, almost cost-free, and effective. Today, the principle of applying a slat armor layer takes its cues from that 75-year-old idea.
By now, you should see a pattern that is not unique to high technology but reflects what happens when innovation meets necessity, or not, as the case may be.
More broadly, when you consider the history of armor from its first large-scale deployments in the Great War and right up to the present day, there are opportunities for modelers to dive deep into the history of innovation across multiple domains.
On the modeling side, innovation is running at an accelerated pace. For example, in the last couple of years, innovation in paint technology means that the ability to create remarkably realistic dirt and grime effects is becoming easy. Mig AMMO, a Spanish firm, is leading the way. Its latest 'shaders,' which were recently released, can be applied using an airbrush. This is much faster than applying oil or enamel paints, although it is an open question whether the modeler has the same degree of fine control over the effect.
BTW below is my new office. My paint bench and a stash of projects waiting to tackled and below that is my building bench with a Soviet T-34-85 in progress and at the bottom, my display case.
In Poland, VMS Supplies has developed a simple 'paint and chip' system that allows modelers to create realistic metal chipping effects in a fraction of the time needed when using other methods. I like the results I get from this technique, although it's not a 'one-size fits all' solution. In Latvia, Copper State Models produces a line of highly detailed and delicate WWI armor, while in Russia, MasterClub is setting the gold standard for aftermarket soft metal tank tracks.
What strikes me in all this is that many of the most exciting innovations are coming out of former Eastern Bloc countries. The same goes for modelers who are widely regarded as rockstars in the armor hobby community.
These folk, many of whom are in the Gen Z cohort, make extensive use of modern media and distribution systems like YouTube, alongside Patreon, which some use to turn their passion into a viable income stream.
Martin Kovac, who goes by the moniker Night Shift, takes this to a whole new place with a combination of incredible technique, art, and attention to detail. Martin goes several steps further, making his videos and Patreon posts both entertaining and educational. But most important is his commitment to answering emails and messages that, in turn, add a human, humble touch that contrasts sharply with some of the prima donnas I've come across in the tech world. I suspect this is because modeling is a dynamic hobby where everyone is constantly learning and keen to get help or feedback on techniques and outcomes.
How well Martin's model scales is unknown. Right now, he's sitting on 160,000 YouTube subscribers and 871 Patreon supporters. He tells me he's learning how to pace himself and not allow the commitment he's made to become a burden that leads to burnout.
The modeling world is not without controversy. For those interested in historical accuracy, there are many blogs, Facebook groups, and forums where you can find enthusiasts willing to expound on why a particular kit is 'inaccurate.'
For example, Border Model - a relatively new vendor - recently produced an amazingly detailed Tiger 1 that is meant to represent tanks that fought in the Battle of Kursk. Purists have jumped in to point out the 'inaccuracies' with this kit. I get it, but then I'm equally aware that historical accuracy is often an illusion. And just where is the intersection between art and accuracy?
As you might imagine, I see numerous parallels between modeling and the world of high technology. It's something where you can go cheap and cheerful but don't expect great results. Or, you can go full-on customization through aftermarket additions, kit modifications, or scratch building componentry to achieve an outcome that shines, all the while having learning opportunities that expand the range of possibilities, even as your pocketbook is being drained.
As with any IT project, planning, discipline in execution, and attention to detail are vital ingredients to achieving a stand-out result. And once you've got that great project done, there is satisfaction in knowing that you achieved something worthwhile that can be shared and appreciated by fellow modelers.
Right now I have a Centurion Mk 1 (my father's tank type)(I am holding one in the photo at top) and a Soviet T-34/85, the type that entered Berlin in 1945, on the bench, pretty much ready for paint. They've both been a lot of fun while presenting new build challenges for how I imagine them once complete. I have another 26 armor vehicles to go at so plenty of road ahead. Onwards!
Great post, Dennis, and thanks Vinnie for hosting it. Everyone needs a hobby or passion like Dennis has.
Posted by: Fscavo | June 03, 2021 at 02:22 PM
Dennis, thanks for sharing. I believe we are about the same age and you mentioned some of the companies whose models I built in my childhood. My father was a modeler, but he made these beautiful and intricate sailing warships in bolsa wood. My Airfix, etc. tanks, ships, and planes were all I could manage.
Interesting info on technology advances.
Posted by: Norman Marks | June 03, 2021 at 03:36 PM