To arm or not to arm? That is the question.

[seadude]

Whenever I build a model kit, I always like to add more armament (Bombs, missiles, guns, etc.) to it. I'm not sure why. I guess I just want to make sure my planes, ships, tanks, etc. have adequate offensive and defensive armament. For some strange reason, I just can't stand "plain" ships, aircraft, etc. with little or no armament. So I was just curious: Is there anybody else who has similar feelings?

[Army of One]

Yeah......gotta admit that i mostly make a/c and always want them armed to the teeth.......i have a few 1/35 APC's that i want to add pintle mounted machine guns to........and maybe an ATGM as well.......

[dadlamassu]

I like my warplanes to be armed - otherwise what is their point?  Same goes for combat vehicles though I do not for lots of "clutter". In fact if a particular kit of a plane does not have the bombs, missiles, rockets and gun pods it should have then I will look for one that does.  Even better is the kit includes a choice so I can build two or three differently armed ones! 

[Hobbes]

I've done both: clean builds to show the lines of the aircraft, and I've done builds where every pylon is occupied. I've also done a few what-ifs where the deviation from reality is in the armament (e.g. Tornado with ALCM cruise missies, a German Typhoon with a SEAD loadout).

[zenrat]

Some aircraft need lots of weapons (A10, Phantom, Hind) while others look better clean (Starfighter, TSR2, Spitfire) and of course its always good to build something that doesn't have destruction as its sole purpose.

Having said that, if you've got boxes of weapons it's sometimes hard to resist the urge to fill up every single hardpoint.

[Gondor]

I'm with Zenrat on this, some aircraft to me need weapons hanging from every point but not all aircraft do. It all depends on subject matter to me. Display aircraft and pure flying skills trainers would be without but others would have something more realistic rather than "everything including the kitchen sink" approach.
An example of my approach is the F-111K I am building. The build will show off the differences between the F-111K and the other versions of F-111 so will not be armed and may not have any fuel tanks under the wings due to the aircraft being shown as if undergoing maintenance and as such it would not have weapons.

Gondor

[zenrat]

I dislike the look of stores above the wing.  It just doesn't look right to me - like the wings were put on upside down.
If I get the Airfix EE Lightning I suspect my father will buy me as a birthday present (I gave him a list to choose from but he's predictable) then it won't have overwing tanks.

[kerick]

I think combat aircraft should be loaded up but just not to the point of being impossible to take off.

[Captain Canada]

I like to hang ords all over mine. When I was a kid, and my dad built models, he was a 'gear down, otherwise clean'  kind of guy. I think that might have somat to do with it. having  said that, it's really a crap shoot I guess. Some aeros just look right all bombed up. Like the new F-35 with external stores.

[Steel Penguin]

im generally of the opinion that if its supposed to carry, hang the stuff on, what tends to get my goat, is when the stuffs there to arm the plane, but there's no pilot

[seadude]

I like my warplanes to be armed - otherwise what is their point?  Same goes for combat vehicles though I do not for lots of "clutter". In fact if a particular kit of a plane does not have the bombs, missiles, rockets and gun pods it should have then I will look for one that does.  Even better is the kit includes a choice so I can build two or three differently armed ones! 

I'm kinda the same way concerning the bolded part above. I want to make sure the vehicle (Airplane, ship, tank, etc.) has enough "stuff" on it, but not to the point where it is cluttered. I often see a lot of tanks and other APC's just crammed with all sorts of extra gear all over the tops of them. But I tend to feel this ruins the appearence of a model as you can't see the vehicle itself. As for buying a kit, yeah, I'll go into a hobby store and browse around till I find something that meets my needs and has the "extras" I'm looking for.

[NARSES2]

I'm with Zenrat. If the aircraft's main job was ground support/attack then it needs to be armed up ; if a fighter then I tend to leave her clean apart from the odd drop tank.

Must admit I don't tend to arm my Wif's as heavily as when I was younger. Some would have had to walk to the target 

[Rick Lowe]

And if the aircraft's job was observation/recon, it's weapons would have been Mk1 Eyeballs and Radios anyway - except in the case of FAC, but even there it would have been only marker rockets.

[Dizzyfugu]

I have a rather scenic view on this topic, because I have, in many cases, a background story for a kit as well as an idea how and where to set it into scene. If you have a "mission", it makes choice of ordnance easier and also more plausible. It IMHO looks better than just decking the kit out like an Xmas tree.

Besides, I also had a phase (20 years ago, though) when I'd hang anything that goes under a kit, e .g. an A-10, but I have become more selective and "purpose-bound" (see above). Besides, I also like to take some pics of the clean kit, and later some with the final ordnance.

[zenrat]

... I often see a lot of tanks and other APC's just crammed with all sorts of extra gear all over the tops of them. But I tend to feel this ruins the appearence of a model as you can't see the vehicle itself...

Now there's an idea.  I've been looking for a Matchbox LRDG set when all I really need is a few of the sets of resin cargo for one and some wheels...