Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

[DrLarsen]

@Fishmoto37:

The Japanese also built the Musashi which was commissioned in 1942. It was the second of the Yamato class.

OK, typo, it should read “…that the Yamato was the only NEW BB class the Japanese built…”

Anyway, that makes my point.  The only other BB’s even on the drawing board in Japan were essentially “super-Yamato’s” (the A-150 design) or “baby-Yamato’s” (the B65 design… and seeing as the Japanese planned for 4 of them and had the 3 halfway built before converting it into a carrier after Midway, the Yamato is as close as it gets to a “typical new” Japanese battleship, as otherwise atypical as it may have been by world-wide standards.  And I think FMG should concentrate on new stuff, not old stuff.  Let Coach do old stuff and we can use oob stuff to fill in for old stuff until then…

My picks, based on by “DO THE NEW!” principle are:

US:

Tank 1: M36 (Pershing as second choice)

Tank 2: SHERMAN (LATE WAR!)

Transport: Liberty Ship

SS: GATO CLASS

DD: SUMNER CLASS (Fletcher as second choice)

CA: BALTIMORE CLASS (Wichita as second choice, then Cleveland, then Brooklyn)

CV: ESSEX CLASS (Lexington as second choice)

BB: IOWA CLASS (South Dakota as second choice, then North Carolina)

Bomber: B-29 (B-24 as second choice)

Tac: TBM/TBF AVENGER

Truck:GMC 6x6

Air Trans: C-47 DAKOTA

Artillery: 155 MM LONG TOM

Infantry 1: STANDARD W/ M1

Infantry 2: AIRBORNE W/ M3 (folding-stock M1 carbine as second choice; Thompson was rather heavy/ unwieldy for airborne troops…)

[Imperious Leader]

I seem to remember you yourself, IL, once referring to the US Old BB’s as obscolete “death traps” unworthy to float on the same ocean as the Bismark, and though I thought at the time that your rhetoric was a bit extreme, there is a reason why none of the US Old BB’s were ever to fulfill their original mission of sea control.

The point of this was to illustrate the obvious advantage that Bismarck had in speed ( 30+ knots vs. 21 knots) and range and fire control of her guns vs. old ww1 style garbage fire control and toilet paper thin coffin battleships.  Bismarck could just maintain range and pick off every ship in battleship row one after another… it would be a joke.  Those old BB’s were death traps. Timerover51 was trying to downplay Bismarck and make it seem that any old US battleship was the same as Bismarck, simply because he hates the axis and no other reason. This is his Achilles heal in arguments because he always makes it seem that axis was totally inferior at all times in all things.  He is also the guy who claimed that no people of German heritage helped work on the Atomic bomb, when most of the people who worked on it were of German decent. He basically hates Germans.

Note that at Guadalcanal, when it was a close-run thing, it was 2 US new BB’s that were sent in to save the day (Washington, a North Carolina Class, and South Dakota, first of its class) and no US old BB’s were even sent into the theatre for the entire length of the campaign, when things were really on the line!  If FMG must do something not oob, he should do a new BB of some kind.  But why not an Iowa?  We could just call the oob ones a “South Dakota”, since it’s indistinct enough to fill the part, and will probably be almost exactly the right size in comparison to FMG’s Iowa.  Let Coach or TT do an “old BB” and then we’d have the best of both worlds!

The old battleships had alot of action in these campaigns as well. The choice should be based on:

1. which look conveyed the majority of the Battleships in the war  ( in battleship row just about every ship looked like the Pennsylvania)
2. which battleship has a look different than OOB
3. avoid late-war units. It does not look right in a 1940/41 game if you got a sculpt that came out in 1942-45.

[DrLarsen]

Shokaku is what the OOB looks like, though it says its the Shinano. The japanese carrier choice. This choice should convey the classic look of a japanese carrier with a very small superstructure and the classic pylons under the flight deck in front and or back

You think the oob looks like a Shokaku?  Are you smoking something?  (Just kiding :-D)

Well, OK, I’ll concede that it is a little indistinct; I think the oob Yamato looks like a hybrid Kongo/Yamato, with its disproportionately pagoda-esque superstructure so maybe I should give the oob Shinano’s another look.  But in any case, to the extent that this is true, it actually makes my case that the oob pieces can fill in for more common early-war types, especially since, (AND THIS WILL BE KEY!) they will be a little bit smaller, since FMG has said he’s making his a little bigger to show more detail.  If you convince FMG to make a bunch of smaller/ early-war units that are all physically a little bigger than the oob pieces, it would look absolutely RIDICULOUS to then use the OOB pieces as “super” versions of bigger and nicer-looking “typical” pieces.  It makes far more sense to have FMG do all the “best and biggest”, and we’ll at least have one consistent-looking set that is consistent.  Then we can use oob for “typicals” as a stop-gap and Coach can do a consistent early-war set.  Then we’d have two consistent sets and one inconsistent oob set that we can gradually dispense with, instead of 2 inconsistent ones… which then would make it almost impossible for yet a third attempt to have even a chance at consistency!

FMG has already picked a set of mostly the “best and biggest” for Italy and Germany; it would be a big mistake for him to then give the allies nothing by obsolete “death traps” (in your own words).  Yes the axis had the jump on the allies in new equipment at war’s beginning, but why stick them with nothing but “garbage fire control” (in your own words) in their tanks and BB’s for the rest of the war.  The whole dynamic of both A&A and WW2 is that the allies have their responses coming, in production, technology, numbers, etc., but will they get there in time… that’s the whole drama.  Stick the US with obsolete stuff and you’re basically predetermining that the cavalry will never come… and then where’s the drama!  The outcome is over, the “evil empires” have won and they might as well start learning German and Japanese…

[Imperious Leader]

Shokaku

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/images/zuikaku.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/shokaku-cv-schem.htm&h=325&w=950&sz=39&tbnid=e5fkjTCiuh4UpM:&tbnh=51&tbnw=148&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dshokaku%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=shokaku&hl=en&usg=__TdUNna6QbgS64x0gbQSSwC2lScU=&sa=X&ei=G2OeTYyRCerfiALntPGMAw&sqi=2&ved=0CD8Q9QEwBg

Shinano
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/images/shinano.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/shinano-cv-schem.htm&h=550&w=1000&sz=144&tbnid=Pve2ioVmhI6IlM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=149&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dshinano%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=shinano&hl=en&usg=__uy6MPJpp31qUqBPHLdaA7qeFkv8=&sa=X&ei=TmOeTbTeKYThiALKk9T-Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAw

The OOB piece for the japanese CV look like the first picture, though they are supposed to look like the second picture.  Also, both carriers look like classic UK or US carriers.

The OOB piece Yamato looks nothing like a Kongo or Nagato.

I made no claims about the size of the pieces, only that they are similar to OOB.

Also, i am not interested in looking at only OLD UNITS. In the case of the Battleships this might be the case. But your choices are all units that were mostly used in late-war and you got no early war units.  FMG did not pick the biggest or baddest. If they did the Me-262 would be used and the JU-87 would not since its early war.

The biggest and baddest does not work at all. The choices must reflect the majority of the “LOOK” used in most of the units during the war and also not choices that didn’t fight till late war, since many games start in 1940-42.

For USA the Sherman is grudgingly acknowledged. Pershing is a joke choice on the other hand.

P-51 is a good choice and the plane choices are just fine.

The ship choices are fine as long as they don’t look anything like the OOB units.  This is where the Pennsylvania comes in. All your choices look like a do over of OOB and OOB got it wrong.

The German choices have a mix of early and midwar units.  Your list is like 99% late war. Not good.

[DrLarsen]

Look, your fundamental argument against the Yamato was that it was the other four Japanese BB classes that “did the dirty work…” yet you want to stick the US with a BB class that didn’t!  Check your facts on the old BB’s: they didn’t get within a thousand miles of Guadalcanal until the battle was long over, and even in the late war were used almost exclusively as floating fire-support for amphibious landings, never as decisive instruments of sea control, whereas Adm. Willis Lee’s 2 new BB’s ended up being the final straw that caused the IJN to give up on Guadalcanal when his last-ditch “ride to the rescue” resulted in the loss of the 2nd Kongo class BB in 2 days.  The only exception to the rule that the US old-BB’s were on the virtual sidelines was Surigao Strait, and that’s because the Japaneses managaged to break into what had essentially become a rear echelon area as a result of Halsey’s recklessness.

I utterly reject the notion that we should restrict the combatants to “early war” types, because it wasn’t necessarily the “early war” types that won the war or even that were used in the largest numbers.  (Again, 24 Essex class carriers!  Along with dozens of Baltimores and Clevelands and hundreds of Fletchers and Sumners…)  The Panther wasn’t used in numbers until 1943 and the two Tigers that FMG has already done are clearly late-war models!  If your argument is that FMG should do what was most numerous or typical over the overall course of the whole war, then you’d have to give the US all new ships classes, since the numbers of the new ship classes dwarfs anything they had in the beginning… or for that matter dwarfs what anybody else had in the end…

And no, the Pershing was NOT a joke.  The US Army Ordnance big-wigs probably made a big mistake in not giving it a higher priority, but why should FMG force players to repeat that mistake?  (Who are, after all, armchair generals exploring alternate history possibilities by the nature of the game…)  The Pershing had its pro’s and con’s, but against an army equipped with 6,000 Panthers the US easily could have and should have responded with at least 6,000 Pershings if they valued the lives of their tank crews, even if it meant a few less Shermans.

[DrLarsen]

The ship choices are fine as long as they don’t look anything like the OOB units.  This is where the Pennsylvania comes in. All your choices look like a do over of OOB and OOB got it wrong.

Actually, aside from the BB category, none of my choices need look much like oob.  Sumner with its twin turrets has a very different sillouhette than the Fletcher.  All of the new-cruisers, like my recomendation of the Baltimore, with their flush decks, couldn’t look more different than oob old Portland.  With BB’s, all the new ones look much alike, but I’m against FMG doing any of the old ones for all the reasons already noted, plus FMG’s will very likely be distinctive from oob just on size and quality if nothing else.  My insistence on a late-war Sherman variant is, I think, a brilliant compromise, since if gives the opportunity for a radically different hull shape and the necessity of a radically different turret, so that it manages to be distinctive from oob without being “rare” in the least.  Considering that even in the “rarest” category, the new-BB’s, we’re dealing with a US fleet of new-BB’s at the end of the war that was exactly the same size as the Japanese old-BB fleet at the war’s beginning… well, I don’t think any of my suggestions are radical in the least!

I just don’t get your anti-late-war-equipment-for-the-allies bias.  Yes, the scenerios start in 1939 or 1940, but by the time the game has gone a few turns you’re no longer there, chronologically, and the fact that the allies need time to get their economies in gear and build up their forces is the whole point, the whole dynamic.  The US should be given FMG ship upgrades that are “1942-era” because that’s when the US fought the war (note that they didn’t get into it until the last month of 1941!) and because that is what they won the war with.

You mention the Me 262… not built in significant numbers; the Me109 and FW 190 were the main German fighters from A-Z and with their late-war engine upgrades stayed reasonably competitive.  Me 262 is perfect for a tech upgrade.  One could argue that the same is true of the Pershing; I concede the Pershing’s rarity, which is why I’ve relegated it to 3rd choice and put forward the M36 Jackson and late-war Sherman as compromises.  Note though, that it would have been easier technologically for the US to mass-produce Pershings than it was for the Germans to mass-produce Me 262’s… or for that matter Tiger II’s which the Germans churned out in fairly low #'s.

[Imperious Leader]

Look, your fundamental argument against the Yamato was that it was the other four Japanese BB classes that “did the dirty work…” yet you want to stick the US with a BB class that didn’t!  Check your facts on the old BB’s: they didn’t get within a thousand miles of Guadalcanal until the battle was long over, and even in the late war were used almost exclusively as floating fire-support for amphibious landings, never as decisive instruments of sea control, whereas Adm. Willis Lee’s 2 new BB’s ended up being the final straw that caused the IJN to give up on Guadalcanal when his last-ditch “ride to the rescue” resulted in the loss of the 2nd Kongo class BB in 2 days.  The only exception to the rule that the US old-BB’s were on the virtual sidelines was Surigao Strait, and that’s because the Japaneses managed to break into what had essentially become a rear echelon area as a result of Halsey’s recklessness.

Its not only that, its because the other Japanese BB classes all look alike and the Yamato is a one off ship.

why in hell would you represent 2 ships that look nothing like the other 15+

You got like 92% that look like Kongo and 8% that look like yamato. You got like 90% of the types of Japanese BB that fought in most of the battles vs. 2 ships that fought in the end of the war is less than satisfactory missions.

Its clear that the Yamato is not a Pagoda style ship, yet this is the standard looking Japanese battleship.

As far as the American ships look at the service records of all the non- Iowa, Missouri

Florida class

* Displacement: 21,800 tons
   * Armament: 10 × 12 in (305 mm) (5x2), 16 × 5 in (127 mm) (16x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
   * Armor:
   * Speed: 21 knots
   * Ships in class: 2: USS Florida and USS Utah
   * Commissioned: both in 1911
   * Fate: Florida scrapped in 1932, Utah became target ship (AG-16) in 1931, sunk at Pearl Harbor in 1941

USS Wyoming
Wyoming class

* Displacement: 27,200 tons
   * Armament: 12 × 12 in (305 mm) (6x2), 21 × 5 in (127 mm) (21x1), two 3-inch (3x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
   * Armor:
   * Speed: 21 knots
   * Ships in class: 2: USS Wyoming and USS Arkansas
   * Commissioned: both in 1912
   * Fate: Wyoming became a training ship (AG-17) in 1931, decommissioned in 1947. Arkansas sunk at Operation Crossroads in 1946

USS New York
New York class

* Displacement: 27,200 tons
   * Armament: 10 × 14 in (356 mm) (5x2), 21 5-inch (21x1), two 3-inch (2x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
   * Armor:
   * Speed: 21 knots
   * Ships in class: 2: USS New York and USS Texas
   * Commissioned: both in 1914
   * Fate: New York sunk as target in 1948, Texas preserved as a memorial 1948

Standard type
Main article: Standard type battleship
USS Oklahoma
Nevada class

* Displacement: 27,500 tons
   * Armament: 10 × 14 in (356 mm) (2x3, 2x2), 21 × 5 in (127 mm) (21x1), 4 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
   * Armor:
   * Speed: 20 knots
   * Ships in class: 2: USS Nevada and USS Oklahoma
   * Commissioned: both in 1916
   * Fate: Nevada sunk as target 1948; Oklahoma sunk at Pearl Harbor in 1941, raised and stripped of salvageable parts, sunk in route to scrapping 1947

USS Arizona
Pennsylvania class

* Displacement: 31,400 tons
   * Armament: 12 × 14 in (356 mm) (4x3), 14 × 5 in (127 mm) (14x1), 4 × 3 in (76 mm) (4x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
   * Armor:
   * Speed: 21 knots
   * Ships in class: 2: USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona
   * Commissioned: both in 1916
   * Fate: Pennsylvania sunk after Operation Crossroads in 1946, Arizona destroyed at Pearl Harbor in 1941, designated as a memorial.

USS Idaho
New Mexico class

* Displacement: 32,000 tons
   * Armament: 12 × 14 in (356 mm) (4x3), 14 × 5 in (127 mm) (14x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
   * Armor:
   * Speed: 21 knots
   * Ships in class: 3: USS New Mexico, USS Mississippi, and USS Idaho
   * Commissioned: New Mexico in 1918, Mississippi in 1917 and Idaho in 1919
   * Fate: sold for scrap, New Mexico & Idaho in 1947. Mississippi became trials ship (AG-128) in 1946, scrapped in 1956

Tennessee class
USS California

* Displacement: 32,000 tons
   * Armament: 12 × 14 in (356 mm) (4x3), 14 × 5 in (127 mm) (14x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
   * Armor:
   * Speed: 21 knots
   * Ships in class: 2: USS Tennessee, and USS California
   * Commissioned: Tennessee in 1920, California in 1921
   * Fate: both decommissioned 1947, sold for scrap 1959

Colorado class
USS Maryland

* Displacement: 32,600 tons
   * Armament: 8 × 16 in (406 mm) (4x2), 12 × 5 in (127 mm) (12x1), 8 × 3 in (76 mm) (8x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
   * Armor:
   * Speed: 21 knots
   * Ships in class: 4: USS Colorado, USS Maryland, USS Washington, and USS West Virginia
   * Commissioned: Maryland in 1921, Colorado and West Virginia in 1923, Washington not completed and sunk as target
   * Fate: Remaining three decommissioned 1947 and sold for scrap 1959.

South Dakota class

* Displacement: 43,200 tons
   * Armament: 12 × 16 in (406 mm) (4x3), 16 × 6 in (152 mm) (16x1), 8 × 3 in (76 mm) (8x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
   * Armor:
   * Speed: 23 knots
   * Ships in class: 6: USS South Dakota, USS Indiana, USS Montana, USS North Carolina, USS Iowa, and USS Massachusetts
   * Commissioned: None commissioned
   * Fate: All cancelled prior to launch in 1923; scrapped on slip

Fast battleships
USS Washington
North Carolina class

* Displacement: 35,000 tons
   * Armament: 9 × 16 in (406 mm) (3x3), 20 × 5 in (127 mm) (10x2), 16 x 1.1 inch AA (4x4)
   * Armor: 11in Belt / 7in Deck
   * Speed: 28 knots
   * Ships in class: 2: USS North Carolina and USS Washington
   * Commissioned: 1941
   * Fate: North Carolina preserved as memorial 1965; Washington scrapped 1962

USS Massachusetts
South Dakota class

* Displacement: 38,000 tons
   * Armament: 9 × 16 in (406 mm) (3x3), 20 (16 on 'South Dakota) x 5 inch (10 or 8 x 2), up to 40 x 40mm AA (17x4), up to 76 x 20 mm AA (76x1), 3 aircraft
   * Armor: 12in Belt / 7.5in Deck
   * Speed: 27 knots
   * Ships in class: 4: USS South Dakota, USS Indiana, USS Massachusetts, and USS Alabama
   * Commissioned: 1942
   * Fate: South Dakota and Indiana scrapped 1960;Alabama preserved as memorial 1964 Massachusetts preserved as memorial 1965

USS Missouri refuels (1980s refit)[3]
Iowa class

* Displacement: 48,500 tons
   * Armament: 9 × 16 in (406 mm) (3x3), 20 × 5 in (127 mm) (10x2), 80 x 40mm AA (20x4), 49 x 20 mm AA (49x1) (1980s modification added 32 x Tomahawk and 16 x Harpoon missiles and 4 x Phalanx CIWS, and deleted 8 5-in guns and all other light anti-aircraft gun systems)
   * Armor: 12in Belt / 8in Deck
   * Speed: 33 knots
   * Ships in class: 6: USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, USS Wisconsin, USS Illinois, and USS Kentucky
   * Commissioned: Four commissioned; first Iowa 1943; last Wisconsin 1944.
   * Fate: Iowa in mothball fleet at Suisun Bay, California; Missouri decommissioned for the second time in 1992, preserved as memorial at Pearl Harbor Hawaii since May 4, 1998 and is maintained by the non-profit USS Missouri Memorial Association; Wisconsin preserved as memorial Norfolk, Virginia; New Jersey preserved as memorial in Camden, NJ; Illinois cancelled and scrapped on slip; Kentucky launched 1950, not completed, scrapped 1958.

I utterly reject the notion that we should restrict the combatants to “early war” types, because it wasn’t necessarily the “early war” types that won the war or even that were used in the largest numbers.

Thats fine so do I. I also reject using late war ships exclusively as you seem to prefer.  I prefer using ships that were used most often, where made the most in terms of quantity, where used in most battles during most of the war, and have a look that is common to the basic profile of what most units where used in the war.

You want to restrict to only the biggest late war units. The actual choices must follow the pattern of what was typical. In Iowa class only Missouri and Iowa were used with frequency.

Of the South Dakota class, id say three of these four ships were used frequently. The Washington class had two ships

So of the fast battleships: 7 of these saw decent action.

If you look at the other 10 battleships: they all had war long careers. Based on the history i now feel the West Virginia should be the new selection, not the Pennsylvania. The distinctive feature in all these battleships is the tower on top of the superstructure. It is somewhat similar to the Royal Oak ( UK OOB BB sculpt)

USS Nevada
USS Pennsylvania
USS New Mexico
USS Mississippi
USS Idaho
USS Tennessee
USS California
USS Colorado
USS Maryland
USS West Virginia

[Imperious Leader]

none of my choices need look much like oob.

hahaha!

OOB in bold:

US:

Tank 1: M36 (Pershing as second choice)  both late war M36 saw action in Sept 1944. How nice to have these in global 1940,4 years early.  Pershing was like the last month of the war. ridiculous

Tank 2: SHERMAN (LATE WAR!)

Transport: Liberty Ship

SS: GATO CLASS

DD: SUMNER CLASS (Fletcher as second choice)

CA: BALTIMORE CLASS (Wichita as second choice, then Cleveland, then Brooklyn)

CV: ESSEX CLASS (Lexington as second choice)  Essex saw action in late 1943…again late war.

BB: IOWA CLASS (South Dakota as second choice, then North Carolina)  These are all early 1943 and 1944 models. again you picked a late war.  It does not look right to play 1939-42 with ships not even made till 1943.

Bomber: B-29 (B-24 as second choice)–this is late war

Tac: TBM/TBF AVENGER

Truck:GMC 6x6

Air Trans: C-47 DAKOTA

Artillery: 155 MM LONG TOM

Infantry 1: STANDARD W/ M1

Infantry 2: AIRBORNE W/ M3 (folding-stock M1 carbine as second choice; Thompson was rather heavy/ unwieldy for airborne troops…)

IN the case of the German FMG pieces these were used in 1940-42, but your choices are not consistent with this value. Your choices are invariably 1943 and 1944-45 units. If FMG made me-262, king tigers, etc, then perhaps it might be more consistent to make a list as you propose.

[DrLarsen]

The US old-BB’s had long war-time careers all right… in secondary and rear-echelon missions.  The new BB’s, like Washington, North Carolina and South Dakota were all right in the thick of things as soon as they were finished, and all were taking front-line hits as early as Guadalcanal.  Check your Guadalcanal facts.  New BB’s operated with the main “Blue Water” battle-fleets meant to duke it out with the Japanese Combined Fleet ASAP (it alternated between being called 3rd/5th, depending on whether it was Halsey’s or Spruance’s turn to command) whereas the old-BB’s were grouped with the transports, CVE’s & DE’s of the 7th Fleet in what was supposed to be a supporting role in MacArthur’s “Brown Water Navy”… and that was in the “Late War” era, late 1944, actually.  For the entire first half of the war the former denizons of “Battleship Row” were either being rebuilt/ modernized or were cooling their heals in San Diego…

The new-BB’s were the US “front line” battleships, not the old-BB’s from the point of Pearl Harbor to the signing of the armistace (on the Missori, Halsey’s flag ship, no less!)  And there were 10 of them built (to only 10 Japanese old BB’s: double check your figures)  Oh, and the Yamato wasn’t a 1-off: it was to be the first of 4.  That it ended up being only the first of 2 was an accident of history that could have gone the other way.  If the Japanese hadn’t changed their building priorities after Midway, and had incurred the same losses as they did in Guadalcanal and elsewhere, there would have been more Yamato’s in their fleet than any other single BB class by the time of the Leyte Gulf conflict, and their 7 remaining old BB’s would have accounted for much less of their BB total tonnage than their four Yamato’s.

FMG should do a proper Yamato and we can use the oob Japanese BB’s as the old BB’s.  They look like pagoda-masts to me anyway.  Hopefully then, Coach will do some proper “Pagoda’s” for us and we’ll have the best of both worlds!

[DrLarsen]

M35 (Pershing as second choice)  both late war M36 saw action in Sept 1944. How nice to have these in global 1940,4 years early.

Yes, because the US tanks ENTERED the war late.  And so would tanks likely in A&A, since it will take time for the US to build them!  THIS IS MY POINT!

Pershing was like the last month of the war. ridiculous

Yes, but this easily could have been different if the US had chosen different building priorities! THIS IS MY POINT!  In any case, I’ve conceded that the Pershing would be a good choice as a tech unit for a “heavy tanks” tech that Germany could be given free as a “National Advantage” but which the others would have to research according to their priorities…

Transport: Liberty Ship

SS: GATO CLASS

DD: SUMNER CLASS (Fletcher as second choice)

CA: BALTIMORE CLASS (Wichita as second choice, then Cleveland, then Brooklyn)

You critique my choices as oob when yours are too!  …and Baltimore is not, I repeat NOT, oob, and doesn’t even look much like the oob Portland.  Neither is the Sumner oob, and my Sumner has a gun arrangement more different from oob than your Gearing.

Essex saw action in late 1943…again late war.

Yes, the Essex entered late in the war… because the US was practically out of carriers between Guadalcanal and the entry of the Essexes and had to reorganize their battle fleet around them in order to wage the second half of the war!  Again, as I said earlier, the early war US and Japanese fleets had nearly annihilated each other by 1943 and the US then went on to win the war largely with the new ships it had built… much as is likely to happen in any scenerio of A&A where the US wins!  In A&A, the drama comes from the Axis trying to win the war before the allies can get in gear and build up, and the allies try to hold them up until they can get their new stuff into the field.  I want FMG to offer us some of that exciting new stuff, not the obsolete old stuff that was barely adequate.  His excellent pieces should be of excellent ships, planes and tanks, not of mediocre ones!

Do the new, FMG!  DO THE NEW!

[DrLarsen]

Bomber: B-29 (B-24 as second choice)–this is late war

Yes, the B-29 was also late-war, but it was THE BOMBER that bombed the heck out of Japan… because it was the only plane that could!  That’s why they were nearly all sent to the Pacific rather than to Europe: it was the only bomber with the necessary range to hit Japan from the Marianas.  And please note that it looks pretty different from the oob B-17!

I do concede that it might also be a good “heavy bombers” or “long-range bombers” tech piece… which is why I offer the B-24 as a 2nd choice.  But I do hope SOMEONE does it!

[Lunarwolf]

i still rather see variety, and I will continue to push for it. These pieces would not be worth buying for someone like me, if half the pieces looked like the pieces that came with the game. So please FMG try to stay away from duplicating pieces as possible. also i would like to add that i agree with IL early war is important Especially for those of us that want to play 1939 scenarios, and weapons that were used the most should be represented, Although i would like seeing a Pershing i would rather it replace the Sherman.

[knp7765]

I find it funny that certain people are saying that FMG should make “early war” pieces because many of our games start in 1940.  However, the majority of people ALSO want the P-51 Mustang for the US fighter piece and it didn’t come out until 1944.  So all the US equipment should be the older, less reliable stuff EXCEPT for the fighter, which was not only “late war” but also the best fighter in the war.  Nonsense.

I agree with you Dr Larsen.  FMG pieces should be all of the best equipment that each nation had to offer, like Iowa and Yamato BBs, and not the older, less reliable models.  Let coachofmany include some of those models in his supplement sets.  OR, once all nations are finished, perhaps FMG could come out with new, early war sets.  For these first sets though, use the best models that were actually used in numbers during the war.  In other words, for example, the German fighter should be the Me109 or Fw190 and NOT the Me262.  Sure, the Me262 was probably the best fighter since it was a jet, but there were many more Me109s and Fw190s.

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

@Lunarwolf:

i still rather see variety, and I will continue to push for it. …So please FMG try to stay away from duplicating pieces as possible. …early war [sculpts] are important Especially for those of us that want to play 1939 scenarios… Although i would like seeing a Pershing i would rather it replace the Sherman. [and have the P-51 Mustang for as the iconic american fighter.]

Valid points. I hope FMG is listening.

[DrLarsen]

The OOB piece for the japanese CV look like the first picture, though they are supposed to look like the second picture.  Also, both carriers look like classic UK or US carriers.

I’m holding the oob piece in my hand and looking at both pictures in you links and I simply can’t imagine that you say you’re seeing what you’re seeing.  oob clearly looks like the second picture, not the first.  What is more, the first picture looks much more like the “typical Japanese carrier”, including smallish superstructure and pylons, but is a balanced and finished-looking ship.  I think that the Shokaku would be a good choice for FMG, because it does have that “typically Japanese” look, (as much as it can be said to exist), whereas Kaga and Akagi look like unfinished monstrousities, and the Hiryu/Soryu/Unryu series is just simply small and unimpressive.  What’s more, the Shokaku class represents, short of Taiho, which I admit was a bit of a “black swan,” the best of Japanese technology… and was available at the war’s beginning, so it doesn’t fall into the “early vs. late” controversy at all.

[DrLarsen]

Note also that the Taiho and Shinano do look much alike; IL, are you sure you’re not confusing the Shokaku with the Taiho?  Shokaku looks nothing like the Shinano and nothing like oob!

If we insist that FMG shouldn’t do oob, I’d say the logical choice for US BB is still a new BB: Washington and South Dakota were battle-winners at Guadalcanal, but no old BB’s were brought into action until late in the war.  Note that: new-BB’s were decisive early war battle-winners, but old-BB’s only had a brief moment to shine 2 years later.  Ironic, perhaps, but true!

Oh, and take another look at the oob “Yamato” mast… it’s not just Kongo-high, it’s Fuso-high!  Two quick cuts of an exacto to remove the overhang on the stern and you have an old-style pagoda-BB.

[Fishmoto37]

@knp7765:

I find it funny that certain people are saying that FMG should make “early war” pieces because many of our games start in 1940.  However, the majority of people ALSO want the P-51 Mustang for the US fighter piece and it didn’t come out until 1944.  So all the US equipment should be the older, less reliable stuff EXCEPT for the fighter, which was not only “late war” but also the best fighter in the war.  Nonsense.

I agree with you Dr Larsen.  FMG pieces should be all of the best equipment that each nation had to offer, like Iowa and Yamato BBs, and not the older, less reliable models.  Let coachofmany include some of those models in his supplement sets.  OR, once all nations are finished, perhaps FMG could come out with new, early war sets.  For these first sets though, use the best models that were actually used in numbers during the war.  In other words, for example, the German fighter should be the Me109 or Fw190 and NOT the Me262.  Sure, the Me262 was probably the best fighter since it was a jet, but there were many more Me109s and Fw190s.

First P-51 Mustang aerial victory was in Aug. 1942 by an American flying for the RCAF. The first U.S. unit to fly the Mustang was the 154th observation squadron in Morocco in April,May 1943.

[dadler12]

FMG stick with the iconic units that will sell best.  The early war pieces can always be made later or supplemented by coachofmany.  Do not be swayed to make exclusively early war models or you will not sell as many as you would like.

[Imperious Leader]

However, the majority of people ALSO want the P-51 Mustang for the US fighter piece and it didn’t come out until 1944.  So all the US equipment should be the older, less reliable stuff EXCEPT for the fighter, which was not only “late war” but also the best fighter in the war.  Nonsense.

Right, but how then did four squadrons fly in Aug 1942?

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html

Aug. '42 - Dieppe Raid

The “reconnaissance in force” on August 19 gained little for the Allies, except the expensive and bloody lesson in how tough the German defenses were, both on the ground and in the air. The raid, Operation Jubilee, introduced the Typhoon and the Spitfire Mk. IX, and marked the first Mustang aerial victory. Four Mustang squadrons, No. 26, 239, 400, and 414, provided tactical recon for the ground troops.

If we followed what Larson wants the standard German fighter should be the Horton flying wing or He-162, and the standard German tank should be the Maus. Yea good move.  Just inflate the units like Pershing tank of which a whole 20 or so saw service in the last month of the war. Lets just ignore all the units that fought in 1939-1943 and keep making games based on 1940 using units that didn’t exist till 1944 or 1945 like the Pershing tank. because we must ignore old units with distinguished service records and hype stupid drawing board uber late war units that “could have seen action”

How bout instead we get a hold of our senses and actually have pieces that look like the units typically found fighting during the war and stop this nonsense?  The Pershing was not even used in pacific and not more than 20 used like a month before VE- day. Yea great iconic choice for a tank. :roll:

and not the older, less reliable models

Instead of saying this you might make the point by saying:

we want late war experimental models that could have been used, and not the types of units that actually fought most of the battles and typify the look of American units during 1939-1945. Instead lets just deal with drawing board units and post 1943 units exclusively.  They still fight with the same values so this ‘reliable’ comment has no water. Looking for realitic units that would be fighting in 1940, 41 or 42, not units that fought just in pacific in 45 or 44-45 ships.

It looks really stupid having a Pershing tank in 1940, just because they made 50 of them and they were stronger.

[Imperious Leader]

Do not be swayed to make exclusively early war models or you will not sell as many as you would like.

Nobody said this. What was actually said was to make the most common unit that fought most of the time and avoid models that look like OOB. The other side if you read their posts just wants late war units which is extreme point of view. My point of view is most flexible, as some units may be early, mid, or late war.

Because we are favoring the most common and unique look of the unit that saw the most actions in the war, this can be from any part of the war.

P-51 midwar
JU-87 early war
Tiger tank late war
Lexington early war
Liberty ship midwar
Kongo early war