2016/2017 GB Season Schedule and Discussion

[Nick]

Not a problem, after all we trust people only start when the gun goes and not before after all. If we trust the members to play fair there is no reason not to trust the mods. Otherwise we'd need to pay the Mods expenses to go around checking people and they'd need a time machine 

Not a problem there, they can just borrow Dizzyfugu's time machine. I'm sure he has one given his rate of build! 

[Old Wombat]

As far as I'm aware all Marines & Naval Infantry are an integral part of the Navy (or, at least, that's where their funding comes from) but I could be wrong.

From memory, Marines are the military (as opposed to naval) arm of their respective Navy & their primary function is to conduct landings, create beach heads & capture fortifications where significant opposition is expected to assist naval operations. During WW1 this was expanded to include general battlefield operations, as well, & during WW2 their roles changed, again, to include Special Operations (Commandoes, SBS, etc.).

Naval Infantry are sailors, often trained as gunners, whose role is to conduct shore landings & reconnaissance where minimal or low-level opposition is expected. For a short period before & during WW1 the role of Naval Infantry was expanded to include Marines-type functions but the end of WW1 saw the end of most Naval Infantry formations, which were absorbed into the Army or Marines.


However, for the "In the Navy" GB, which I hope to enter, I'll be going Navy ... Royal Australian Navy, to be precise.

[NARSES2]

As far as I'm aware all Marines & Naval Infantry are an integral part of the Navy (or, at least, that's where their funding comes from) but I could be wrong.

However, for the "In the Navy" GB, which I hope to enter, I'll be going Navy ... Royal Australian Navy, to be precise.

I'm probably wrong but I always thought (or assumed) the US Marine Corps was a separate service ? Maybe it's the way the present themselves ?

Anyway I to will be building a ship. It's a project I started (read semi seriously thought about  ) a few years ago and got as far as cutting a deck into two pieces so I hope that isn't to far started to exclude ?

[NARSES2]

I like the 1980 cut off idea, although that could preclude a lot of Matchbox.  Let me do some delving and I'll come back with an idea when I'm back in the land of wifi.

80 might be a tad early on second thoughts ? Maybe a 30 or 25 year cut off point ?

[JayBee]

Oh dear, there was me ready to swear off GB's as too stresfull.
However one thought that has been going round my head is perfect for the "In The Navy" GB. I even spoke of it to OGL and TSRJoe at Perth, who are now convinced that I am one of the most corrupt, mad, perverted, people under the sun.

[Knightflyer]

Would an aircraft flying for a Fleet Requirements Unit (eg FRADU) count for "In the Navy" ?

[Old Wombat]

As far as I'm aware all Marines & Naval Infantry are an integral part of the Navy (or, at least, that's where their funding comes from) but I could be wrong.

However, for the "In the Navy" GB, which I hope to enter, I'll be going Navy ... Royal Australian Navy, to be precise.

I'm probably wrong but I always thought (or assumed) the US Marine Corps was a separate service ? Maybe it's the way the present themselves ?

Anyway I to will be building a ship. It's a project I started (read semi seriously thought about  ) a few years ago and got as far as cutting a deck into two pieces so I hope that isn't to far started to exclude ?

Nope, they're definitely part of the USN.

The Marine Corps has been a component of the U.S. Department of the Navy since 1834,

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps

Same with the RM.

The Corps of Royal Marines (RM) is the United Kingdom's amphibious light infantry force, forming part of the Naval Service, along with the Royal Navy. The Royal Marines were formed in 1755 as the Royal Navy's infantry troops.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marines

Edit:

Just hunting around a bit found the wikipedia page on the Dutch Marines - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Marine_Corps

The Russian Marines are, officially, Naval Infantry (with a variation of a Navy uniform) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Infantry_%28Russia%29

My own fictional RAM is part of the RAN, currently filling a role somewhere between the current USMC & RM.

[scooter]

I'm probably wrong but I always thought (or assumed) the US Marine Corps was a separate service ? Maybe it's the way the present themselves ? :snip:

Nope, they're definitely part of the USN.

The Marine Corps has been a component of the U.S. Department of the Navy since 1834,

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps
[/quote]

And boy do they hate being reminded of that

[sandiego89]

I realize that some of the discussion of what "in the Navy" may be just discussion, and that folks like to push the definition for perhaps discussions sake, but I vote for tighter themes. There are plenty of ships, aircraft, helo's, blimps, dioramas, subs, vehicles, and figures, as well as as support services such as test pilot schools, aggressors, etc. in "navy" service. "In the marines" would be a great follow on for next year. I opine that if subjects are marked "navy" (or foreign equivalent) they are ok and all of the above (ships, aircraft, etc). If they are marked something else (like marines, omega, coast guard, etc) or operated by someone else, they should not be part of the group build). Yes they are gray areas we could all come up with. Too broad a definition tends to water down the theme of the build, but of course just my opinion.

I think it is perfectly ok for a mod to be part of the build (we just may have to double check the vote tallys

I prefer frog/novo over any "old kit"  

Carry on.  Dave

[scooter]

I realize that some of the discussion of what "in the Navy" may be just discussion, and that folks like to push the definition for perhaps discussions sake, but I vote for tighter themes.

Agreed

[PR19_Kit]

I prefer frog/novo over any "old kit"  

What Dave said.......... 

[loupgarou]

I prefer frog/novo over any "old kit"  

What Dave said.......... 

I second that!
And, would a whif built straight out of the box be allowed? 
I know I have already posted this, but it's too much "on topic" :

I could even choose the GB 
- ex-Frog mould: 1/96 Britannia
- soviet
- navy (maritime patrol aircraft)

[sandiego89]

I prefer frog/novo over any "old kit"  

What Dave said.......... 

And I wasn't even refering to Kit being old!

It will be really interesting to see what folks can come up with from these old frog/novo molds!

-Dave.

[Gondor]

I prefer frog/novo over any "old kit"  

What Dave said.......... 

And I wasn't even refering to Kit being old!

It will be really interesting to see what folks can come up with from these old frog/novo molds!

-Dave.

I have a couple of very interesting ideas, both of which involve combining parts from two frong/novo/frogspawn kits and I am not going to say what the builds will be............ not yet anyway 

Gondor

[kitbasher]

I like the 1980 cut off idea, although that could preclude a lot of Matchbox.  Let me do some delving and I'll come back with an idea when I'm back in the land of wifi.

80 might be a tad early on second thoughts ? Maybe a 30 or 25 year cut off point ?

OK at the risk of being too European and aircraft-centric, FROG went to the wall in 1976, Matchbox 1991, ESCI 1991 depending on interpretation.

Let's be democratic and have a referendum, options being:
1.  FROG, NOVO and any other subsequent rerelease without modification to the moulds except Revell repops that tidied the clear parts (decals excluded); or
2.  Any kit released before 1992 (therefore 25 years old or more).  Rereleases without mould changes permitted (decals out of scope).  For example, the Airfix Mosquito II/VI/XVIII counts but the NF.XIX/J30 boxing doesn't unless the 'new' parts are not used.

Any thoughts?  I'm happy either way