I also cast my vote for the SM 79 for the Italian bomber. I thought that one was decided on when FMG first started this project. I was really looking forward to seeing the SM 79 pieces.
The transport plane looks really cool. That’s one I hadn’t seen before.
I would go with the SM79 on account of its uniqueness. Unless of course you were already planning on having all nations with 4 engine heavy bombers. If that was to be the case then go with the four engine sculpt.
P.S. Sorry about the sculpt mishap. Its nice to know that FMG cares enough about their products that they would consider resculpting instead of simply shipping out USA cruisers in orange for example.
The japanese bomber will be the Betty so… not all nations have 4 engine bombers, no problem with the SM 79.
Having all the Nations heavy bombers be 4 engine would eliminate some confusion when they are scattered around the board.
The japanese bomber will be the Betty so… not all nations have 4 engine bombers, no problem with the SM 79.
Good point. Go with the 3 engine SM79.
SM 79 here as well! I converted from the P.108 after examining the SM 79.
@Danger:
Having all the Nations heavy bombers be 4 engine would eliminate some confusion when they are scattered around the board.
Sure. But in what game have you ever seen Italy field heavy bombers? Italy doesn’t have the economy to get tech unless the game is pretty much over. besides, the SM 79 would NEVER be confused with another plane and when russia and italy are so close in color, two 4 engine bombers would actually be more confusing, not less. Give Italy their wacky looking planes! ;)
We are going to make the SM 79! Doing Italy first has really made the start of this project difficult. As you can imagine there are not as many models of WW2 Italian tanks/trucks/planes.
2 engines bomber is more accurate for Axis.
4 engines for UK and US.
I have B24 on my game board……I love that one!!!
A long-range heavy bomber doesn’t necessarily have to have 4 engines. During the later part of the war, the Germans developed the Heinkel He 177 which was considered to be a long-range heavy bomber and it only had 2 engines. However, I don’t think it actually went past the prototype stage because of too heavy needs for other types of aircraft at that stage in the war. If Germany had been more successful in WW2, maybe they would have ended up producing and employing the He 177, like to hit the Soviet production facilities east of the Urals for instance.
Actually,I think the He 117 had 2 engines per nacelle,giving it 4 engines.I love the old hunchback,but I vote for the Piaggio!
Actually,I think the He 117 had 2 engines per nacelle,giving it 4 engines.I love the old hunchback,but I vote for the Piaggio!
Nope, only two engines.
In general, the Axis didn’t have as far to fly to get to the action and they didn’t ALWAYS need to cross some body of water (unlike Britain), so they didn’t need to develop 4 engine bombers until they were starting to lose the war, and by then they didn’t have the time or economy to work through the technology. The US and Britain were driven by the need for range and the ability to make it back to England or the Pacific Islands with functional engines - thus the redundancy of 4. Germany made much smaller hops, although once they had control of Western Europe they did desperately need more substantial bombers. They went with rockets instead.
As for Japan, it simply didn’t recognize the power of strategic bombing in a war of attrition; thus they were investing in naval strength and waiting for “the final decisive battle”. It wasn’t a priority of Japan to strategic bomb the allies as nearly as it was a priority of the US. Thus Japanese bombers were mainly all tactical - the Betty’s were torpedo bombers and medium payload at best and that was the primary bomber.
And Italy simply didn’t have the technology or military/political direction/ambition to build a heavy bomber.
I can only speak for myself, but I’d prefer the figures to denote the axis typical tried and true technology, not prototypes.
Was the Betty used as a transport plane? If so… we can use Nakajima G8N Renzan “Rita”
as heavy bomber.
No… the japanese transport plane was the Mitsubishi Ki-57…
if GERMANY gets heavy bombers, is there some rule where they can share their tech breakthrus with their allies(ITALY)?
if GERMANY gets heavy bombers, is there some rule where they can share their tech breakthrus with their allies(ITALY)?
As a house rule, yes. As a OOB rule, I highly HIGHLY doubt it. I also don’t think that could ever be balanced.
Actually,I think the He 117 had 2 engines per nacelle,giving it 4 engines.I love the old hunchback,but I vote for the Piaggio!
Nope, only two engines.
No, KOOLHOVEN is correct the He 177 had four engines. Even though it does appear to have only two engines it has two engines driving each propeller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177#Engines
But this is off topic… Sorry…
Don’t want to stray too far,but the Japanese had the massive 6 engine Fugaku that would have fit somewhere between the B29/B36.Never a chance of being built.We may see it in
1/600 from Raiden.Someone said that the Japanese egg/capsule toy makers managed a beauty in their range.
Actually,I think the He 117 had 2 engines per nacelle,giving it 4 engines.I love the old hunchback,but I vote for the Piaggio!
Nope, only two engines.
No, KOOLHOVEN is correct the He 177 had four engines. Even though it does appear to have only two engines it has two engines driving each propeller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177#Engines
But this is off topic… Sorry…
yes, ok, sorry. Two propellers. Still appears at this scale as a “two engine” plane.
b-29 for usa defentely(heavy bomber)
m-29 peshering(hevey tank)
2 more things. 1)im verry impressed at the time between molds!
2)what nation is next?
