FMG GERMAN pieces

[Sergente_nella_neve]

What about Tiger I and … StuG III ??? I know StuG III isn’t properly a medium tank, it is a tank destroyer and it seems more like the italian Semovente 75/18, already used for the italian sculpts…

[knp7765]

@Sergente:

What about Tiger I and … StuG III ??? I know StuG III isn’t properly a medium tank, it is a tank destroyer and it seems more like the italian Semovente 75/18, already used for the italian sculpts…

I wouldn’t mind seeing the StuG III but FMG has already stated that they are making the Panzer III and since the StuG III used the Panzer III chassis, I think they would be too close together. 
Also, I think the reason they used the Carro Armato (tank) and Semovente (SPG) was because the Italians of WW2 didn’t have a wide range of armor choices, unlike the Germans who seemed to have tons of different tanks, tank destroyers, assault guns and self-propelled artillery to choose from.

[Raeder]

@Sergente:

What about Tiger I and … StuG III ??? I know StuG III isn’t properly a medium tank, it is a tank destroyer and it seems more like the italian Semovente 75/18, already used for the italian sculpts…

Actually it was an Assault Gun that came to fill the role of a Tank Destroyer, but still.

[i rock]

well i quess after i buy these i’ll always be germany unless there are canadian pieces butif not ill most likly play gemrnay every time panzer 3 is the best tank ever B****

[DrLarsen]

Canadian pieces would be so much like UK pieces that I’m not sure there’d be a point!  At least with the ANZAC’s you have their unique hats to distinguish them!

[i rock]

i was joking about canadian pieces but not hat the panzer3s the best tank ever B****
no insultes intented.

[knp7765]

You might possible get Canadian units from FMG, but if you do it will be a while.  The last listing of nations to be produced goes as follows:
Italy
Germany
USA
Japan
USSR
UK
ANZAC – different color than UK with a few unique units of their own
France
Extras or Common Units – ICs, AA guns, Naval Bases, Air Bases, bunkers, HQs, etc.

Those are the sets that FMG wants to make for absolutely sure, assuming the sales go well and they have the funding.  IF everything goes well and they see there is still a demand, the following sets are possible:

China
Neutrals
Canadians
Tech Units

Not necessarily in that order.  I guess it would depend on how many people want which sets.  Anyway, Canada is a possibility.

[cminke]

in the debate of panzer 3 or 4 i say as said before ….4 austf J

[knp7765]

Hey everyone.  There has been a lot of talk on what tanks to use for Germany.  Does anyone have an idea for the FMG Tactical bomber?  Since WOTC came out with the Stuka, I would love to see FMG make the Me 110.  Is anyone with me on this?

[DrLarsen]

One caution I have is, if they use a double-engine plane, would it look too much like the “heavy bomber” and be harder to distinguish?  (Since, that is, most of the German strategic bombers were actually double-engine medium bombers?)  It’s one thing to use the double-engine Mosquito for the UK since their other bomber is a four-engine one, but if the “heavy” is a two-engine, I’m concerned that it will be too hard to quickly distinguish the tac bomber, especially from a distance on a gameboard…

[lozmoid]

Yeah, I agree with DrLarsen here. I would personally like to see the Junkers Ju 88 as the Tac Bomber, and the Heinkel He 277 as the four-engined Strat Bomber.

[DrLarsen]

But the dilemma is that the Ju 88 has already been designated as the strat bomber in the WotC piece set…

[dadler12]

I don’t think the goal here should always be to make different units from WOTC. Isn’t the point just to have better (and some new) units that WOTC provided you with? Don’t you want a Sherman? Aren’t naval units going to be similar except for Italy and France? Isn’t Japan going to have the Zero? I don’t know. I want new units as much as anyone else, but I want iconic units as well. Not units that weren’t as important just because WOTC made them already. These units are so much better looking than WOTC I don’t think it should be a cause to object to something already made.

[Rorschach]

@dadler12:

These units are so much better looking than WOTC I don’t think it should be a cause to object to something already made.

I had the chance to hold these gorgeous italian units in my grubby little hands last night and compare them directly to the OOB WotC units.  All I can say really is ….  :-o!!  There’s no comparison that words can describe.

[kcdzim]

@DrLarsen:

…but if the “heavy” is a two-engine, I’m concerned that it will be too hard to quickly distinguish the tac bomber, especially from a distance on a gameboard…

I don’t think that limiting models by engine count is worth the trouble.  Japan never successfully fielded a 4 engine bomber and Germany’s most successful 4 engine bomber had only two nacelles/props, effectively appearing as a “2 engine” plane for model purposes.  Axis “strategic bombers” were by design and nature tactical themselves.  The Allies were the only power to develop dedicated high altitude strategic bombers.  And besides, “Strategic Bombers” and “Tactical Bombers” are a bit of a misnomer in this game as if you’re attacking ground units with a strategic bomber unit, it’s performing in a tactical bombing role.

I see the Val, Dauntless, IL-2 Sturmovik, and Stuka as representing the ground attack/naval attack roles of the heavy fighters/dive bombers/torpedo bombers.  I say this because I think that “tactical bombers” is the vaguest, broadest term based on the OOB aircraft.  The Mosquito even blurs the line more as while it was a tactical bomber, it excelled it many other roles (recon, night fighting, fighter bomber, etc) while the Val, Dauntless, etc weren’t nearly as flexible.

Should FMG mold the ME110 as a tac bomber (and I think they should, as it was an iconic heavy fighter and ground attack craft), it looks very little like the Ju88.  And if they repeat the Stuka, that’s far more appropriate to the role than the Ju88.

Not to mention this is exactly why there should be a scale difference between bombers, tacs, and fighters similar to OOB units.  Scale realism sometimes needs to take a backseat to unit clarity.

[knp7765]

@DrLarsen:

One caution I have is, if they use a double-engine plane, would it look too much like the “heavy bomber” and be harder to distinguish?  (Since, that is, most of the German strategic bombers were actually double-engine medium bombers?)  It’s one thing to use the double-engine Mosquito for the UK since their other bomber is a four-engine one, but if the “heavy” is a two-engine, I’m concerned that it will be too hard to quickly distinguish the tac bomber, especially from a distance on a gameboard…

I don’t think there would be a problem telling the Me 110 from the Ju 88.  The main difference is the tail fins.  The Ju 88 had a more “normal” type of 1 vertical tail plane with 2 horizontal planes on either side.  The Me 110 had a long horizontal tail plane with twin vertical planes on each end.  Also, the Me 110 was skinnier than the Ju 88 and the wing tips were squared while the Ju 88’s wing tips were rounded.  Finally, the Me 110 was physically smaller than the Ju 88.  At the scale these pieces will be, the Me 110 should be about the same size as the WOTC Stukas, which are a fair amount smaller than the current Ju 88s.  I think it would be easy to distinguish the two on the game board.

[DrLarsen]

You may be right… I’m just a little concerned until I see them side-by-side…

[knp7765]

I just had another idea for the German Stategic bomber.  The Focke Wulfe FW 200 Condor.
I know it was never actually used in this role but it was a four engined/four nacelle long range bomber.  The Germans used them a lot to assist U-Boats in attacking merchant shipping.  While it may not be “historically” accurate to use the FW 200 as a strategic bomber, it would be a pretty cool four engined German bomber piece.  Plus, it would be kind of nice if at least one of the Axis countries had a four engined bomber.

[reloader-1]

I really want the FW 200 Condor as well.

Most beautiful plane in any war.

[DrLarsen]

I don’t think there would be a problem telling the Me 110 from the Ju 88.  The main difference is the tail fins.  The Ju 88 had a more “normal” type of 1 vertical tail plane with 2 horizontal planes on either side.  The Me 110 had a long horizontal tail plane with twin vertical planes on each end.  Also, the Me 110 was skinnier than the Ju 88 and the wing tips were squared while the Ju 88’s wing tips were rounded.  Finally, the Me 110 was physically smaller than the Ju 88.  At the scale these pieces will be, the Me 110 should be about the same size as the WOTC Stukas, which are a fair amount smaller than the current Ju 88s.  I think it would be easy to distinguish the two on the game board.

Well, I just cross-compated the WotC Mosqito with the Japanese “Bettys” and German Ju-88’s and with both Japanese and German tac-bombers to get a sense of this question.  The wingspan will be key, I think, if you’d want to do an Me110 that is easy to distinguish from a Ju-88 from a distance.  I have no idea if this is accurate-to-scale, but the Me110 would need to have a wingspan comparable to the WotC Stuka and Betty (which are about the same.)  This is a little smaller than the WotC Mosquito wingspan.  (The WotC Mosquito’s wingspan is in between the two-engine axis bombers and the one-engine axis tac bombers in size, which is OK in context, since the WotC UK bomber, a four-engine, is so much bigger.)