Need Help to Finalize HBG Japan Set!

[Variable]

The proposed list above for the Japanese will likely be split into two separate sets. The difference this time is we are molding them at the same time. We will likely go back and do the other fill-ins some day. The good thing about the way Coach does his sets is you can get the basics bundled for 10 or 15 bucks per set, and then fill in what you want more of for a few pennies each by-the-piece. Anyone can make their own custom set.

Also, if we do go back and make more German, Russian, or US pieces someday, they can easily be added to our current stock and grouped into “complete sets” as IL mentions above. Since HBG pieces do not stay on the sprues like the old Table Tactics pieces, we can mix and match any number of pieces to make the set required.

Hope this info helps. Going forward now, what do you feel is missing or not needed on the current list?

[Variable]

First post updated with new info and suggestions.

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

I like where these sets are going for the most part. I highly favor matching Japan’s unit classes to the American counterparts. Actually I favor this approach to offer standardized unit classes for all nations. It makes house rules more simplistic.

Also please include a transport plane. A heavy four engine bomber would be nice too. Though I’m not sure Japan had one. Light, medium, heavy tanks (if possible) and less trucks. One or two should suffice for any nation.

Also I’m going against the croud on this one: I’m anti zero. Yes it’s iconic but I already have many dozen zeros. Adding another zero sculpt Doesnt help us create a new unit. It actually removes a new unit from the potential set which is counter to HBG’s said objectives.
Thanks for all your guys work at hbg.

[Lunarwolf]

i just know for my group for we would like to see the consistent pieces for the major powers. such as the early/Mid/late war fighters, early war battleship paratroopers , ect,ect. but with factions that are naval heavy/land heavy they should get extra special troops like Germany / Russia with extra tanks and Japan with there navy Britain with their Commonwealth , and America with pretty much everything. i still feel Japan should match Americas might with Naval forces, and in terms of fighters since with OOB America Has a  5 fighters they can cover early mid late and naval no problem maybe adding 2 army fighters isn’t that bad for Japan. even though a REALLY want to see the Oscar witch was used also for kamikaze attacks during the end of the war. it could work as OOB zero as early war. the TONY for mid war since a lot of people would like to see it, the new HBG improved Zero for naval fighter, and the K-100 for late war fighter.

[Variable]

Updated first post.

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

Thanks. Updates look great.

[DrLarsen]

The OOB Kongo from AA41 should be good enough so no need for a Kongo class BC

With the proposed Japanese HBG set, it appears that the new goal is to make complete sets by nation.

Keeping that in mind, they must consider replacing the OOB pieces. It is no longer “adding in a few new units” for house rules, but making the goal to replace OOB

Given the latter statement, Imperious, which I think is correct, I’m all the more concerned to see an HBG Kongo, and thus disagree with the former statement.  Keep in mind also, that we do not yet know what the size of the AA41 oob Kongo will be.  If it isn’t visually distinct enough from the oob Yamato, then the possibility of using it as an early-war BB and/ or CB is greatly diminished.  (And given that in the pictures from the preview that DJensen provided seem to indicate that the new Kongo will be slightly BIGGER than the new Hood [!?!], I’m not optimistic.)  Doing a Kongo + Yamato allows players to choose either an old BB/ new BB or a BB/CB dichotomy.  Adding one of the other 3 classes (Fuso, Ise or Nagato, again, I don’t have any strong feelings about which, but Fuso seems the popular choice so far) allows the Kongo to slip into the CB role, while the Yamato/ Fuso allows the player to choose either an “old BB/ new BB” or “SBB/BB” dichotomy for the remaining two ships.  HBG could then eventually do the Iowa (or maybe Montana if he’d rather not reduplicate oob and/ or FMG) and the Alaska to give the US the same 3-ship range of capital ships.

But i like the hybrid Battleship?Carriers ( BBAV ISE and HYUGA).

The Hybrids were pretty much all a useless waste of time and materials.  I think it would be just as much a waste of time and materials for HBG to do one now.

whatever CVL they go with it must be one of those flattops with no superstructure to get the iconic Japanese light carrier look.

I’m in complete agreement with this!

Prefer retrofitted Musashi  (10/44), not original.

It’s impossible to tell for sure whether the oob Yamato is the retrofitted version or not, given its level of detail.  It looks to me, though more likely that it is.  It thus seems to me that the initial version would be more distinct.  Was there a particular reason that you preferred it?  Again, it doesn’t seem as though they added anything in the “refit” except tiny AA guns too small to show up on this scale, but only took something away, the 6.1" turrets that HBG might actually be able to do a nice job with…

[DrLarsen]

Variable, which version of the Type 97 Chi-Ha tank were you planning on doing?  The original version or the upgraded “Shinhoto” version?

[Variable]

We could do either one, but the Shinhoto version seems more appropriate.

[AG124]

My thoughts on this matter:

SNLF Marine - Non negotiable, but OK anyway
Type  94 6-wheel Truck - OK
Type 87 Armored Car - Prefer the Type 92
Ho-Ha Mech Inf - OK (OOB is actually German sculpt anyway)
Light Tank? - Type 95 would be OK, as OOB is quite bad. Type 89 would work too
Type 97 Medium Tank - OK, or Type 3 Chi-Nu
Type 5 Ho-Ru Tank Destroyer - Prefer Ho-Ni as Tank Destroyer, and Ho-Ro as SP Artillery (Leave out Ho-Ru altogether)
Ho-Ni SP Artillery - See above
Ki-57 Transport Plane - OK
Ki-61 Tony late war Fighter - Not my first choice, but agree with Variable re appearances.
Val Dive Bomber - Good
B5N Kate torpedo Bomber - Good - glad to see both Kate and Val are mandatory
G8N Heavy bomber - Prefer G6N, but G8N is OK
I-400 Class Sub - Not interested, personally
Destroyer? - Maybe, not highest priority for me with new Akizuki sculpt
Nagara Light Cruiser? - OK, first choice for CL
Mogami Class Heavy cruiser - OK, first choice for CA
Chuyo Class Escort/Light Carrier - OK, but prefer Zuiho class
Kaga carrier - Would like as many IJN fleet carriers as possible, but if I had only one choice, I would choose Taiho. Shokaku class would be second, then Soryu, then Kaga.
Fuso Class Early war Battleship - OK, Fuso preferable over Kongo with new AAA41 Kongo sculpt
Nagato Class Battleship - OK

OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Infantry Carrying Flag - Not interested
Yamato / Musashi Class Hvy Battleship - OK, any refit
Shoho Light Carrier instead of Chuyo Escort Carrier - See above
Taiho Fleet Carrier instead of Kaga - See above
A6M Zero “Zeke” Navy Fighter - OK
Ki-43 Early War Army Fighter - 2 fighters are sufficient
Type 92 Armored Car instead of Type 87 - See above
Type 1 Medium Tank if Type 97 used for Light Tank - Prefer Type 3 Chi-Nu as alternative, but prefer Type 97 as medium tank anyway
Ki-100 Late War Army Fighter - Ki 61 is more distinct within Japanese pieces

[gliven]

The Type 3 Chi-Nu mounted one Type 3 75 mm Tank Gun, one of the largest guns ever to be fitted on a World War II Japanese tank. i would love to see that as the medium tank for japan or even as a heavy tank for japan since they didn’t really have any heavy tanks that weren’t experimental.

[WARRIOR888]

KNP,  I have those same two models only my 1-700 Tamiya Yamato has the 6.1 secondary and my Aoshima Mushashi has the enhanced AA.  I still have the original boxes from 30 years ago.

I think if a Yamato is re-done it should be with the 6.1s  OOB Yamatos can be modified into B-64 Battle Cruisers as I have done.  I am toying with taking 4 OOB Yamato’s and doing some serious mod into fantasy AA  A-150 and A-140 Super BBs with 20 inch guns.

WARRIOR888

[DrLarsen]

@Variable:

We could do either one, but the Shinhoto version seems more appropriate.

If you are only doing 1 tanks, do a Type 97 Chi-Ha Shinhoto

If 2 tanks, do a Type 95 (light) and a Type 97 medium (either model, but I’d say preferably the Shinhoto)

If 3 tanks, do a Type 95 (light) a Type 97 (either model, but I’d say preferably NOT the Shinhoto) and a Type 3 Chi-Nue (medium-heavy)

3 tanks might be overkill for Japan, but you did say that you were trying to do ALL the sculpts for Japan and you do have 3 levels of tanks for most of the nations you’re doing…

Whatever you do DON’T do the Type 89 which by Japanese standards wasn’t considered a “light” tank but rather a medium (but was a really old and weak one.)

The Type 3 Chi-Nu mounted one Type 3 75 mm Tank Gun, one of the largest guns ever to be fitted on a World War II Japanese tank. i would love to see that as the medium tank for japan or even as a heavy tank for japan since they didn’t really have any heavy tanks that weren’t experimental.

I agree IF you’re going ahead and doing 3 tanks.  It didn’t see action, but would’ve if the US had invaded Japan, and was the closest thing to a tank competitive with a Sherman that the Japanese had in any significant numbers of at all.  I suppose an argument could be made for a prototype, since some of the tech units you’re doing for, say, Germany, weren’t really used, perhaps, and the Chi-Nu is hardly a direct competitor with, say, a Tiger or a JS-II… (by objective late-war standards it still barely qualifies as a “medium” much less a “heavy”) but I’d still rather see the actually produced units before the prototypes unless there’s a really compelling reason for it, and I don’t see a compelling reason for a Japanese heavy tank.

[DrLarsen]

@WARRIOR888:

KNP, � I have those same two models only my 1-700 Tamiya Yamato has the 6.1 secondary and my Aoshima Mushashi has the enhanced AA. � I still have the original boxes from 30 years ago.

I think if a Yamato is re-done it should be with the 6.1s � OOB Yamatos can be modified into B-64 Battle Cruisers as I have done. � I am toying with taking 4 OOB Yamato’s and doing some serious mod into fantasy AA � A-150 and A-140 Super BBs with 20 inch guns.

WARRIOR888

I assume you modify oob Yamatos into B-64’s by taking an exacto knife to their sides?  How would you do the A-150’s?  Wasn’t the A-140 just an early planned predecessor of the Yamato with all its guns forward?  If you’ve actually done some of those mods, can you show us some pics?  I might experiment with some of the same techniques, since I’ve got so many dozens of them to experiment with… I might also try some similar techniques to make some oob Iowa’s into Alaskas if it works well…

[DrLarsen]

@Variable:

Since we felt it was too limiting to pick and choose what made the cut on this, we have decided to do more or less all the Japanese pieces we want to do at once. This is going to be an EPIC set! How we split it up is still to be decided and not important yet. What we need is everyone’s opinion on what has been chosen and suggestions on what is left to be chosen. I put a “?” next to the ones that we’re not sure about. Help us to finalize these plus give feedback on the ones we have chosen. Keep in mind the goal is more than simply supplement OOB or FMG. We want to give choices and provide a complete product all at the same time.

Also, be aware the Vals and Ho-Ha mechs are included as HBG can’t keep stock of the OOB pieces! We figured we’d better make some.

Japanese Supplement Set:

SNLF Marine
Type  94 6-wheel Truck
Type 87 Armored Car
Ho-Ha Mech Inf
Light Tank?
Type 97 Medium Tank
Type 5 Ho-Ru Tank Destroyer
Ho-Ni SP Artillery
Ki-57 Transport Plane
Ki-61 Tony late war Fighter
Val Dive Bomber
B5N Kate torpedo Bomber
G8N Heavy bomber
I-400 Class Sub
Destroyer?
Nagara Light Cruiser?
Mogami Class Heavy cruiser
Chuyo Class Escort/Light Carrier
Kaga carrier
Fuso Class Early war Battleship
Nagato Class Battleship

Units in BOLD are not negotiable. Unit TYPES in Bold are not, but the sculpt itself is. These must be done.

OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Infantry Carrying Flag
Yamato / Musashi Class Hvy Battleship
Shoho Light Carrier instead of Chuyo Escort Carrier
Taiho Fleet Carrier instead of Kaga
A6M Zero “Zeke” Navy Fighter
Ki-43 Early War Army Fighter
Type 92 Armored Car instead of Type 87
Type 1 Medium Tank if Type 97 used for Light Tank
Ki-100 Late War Army Fighter

I’m a little surprised by the continuing persistence of the Nagato in the lists.  Can anybody tell me why, as I don’t recall anyone else specifically mentioning it.  I can see several reasons for the others mentioned:

The Yamato
1.makes sense as it is iconic
2. is actually the only truly new BB that Japan had
3. allows for the possibility of being used as a super-BB

The Fuso seems to be the sentinental choice for some reason, but I’m not sure why we would want both Fuso and Nagato instead of Fuso and Kongo, which:
1. could also be used as a battlecruiser
2. was the largest Japanese capital ship class (as none other had more than 2 members)
3. saw more actual combat than any other Japanese capital ship class.

[HBG]

Nagato class was the largest class in tonnage and had the only 16" guns, all others had 14".
This was my choice for a regular battleship. Fuso, Ise as a early war BB. Since WOTC is doing a Kongo class, I went a different route. Yamato would be larger than the Nagato to represent a heavy Battleship.

[DrLarsen]

@AG124:

Type 5 Ho-Ru Tank Destroyer - Prefer Ho-Ni as Tank Destroyer, and Ho-Ro as SP Artillery (Leave out Ho-Ru altogether)
Ho-Ni SP Artillery - See above

I completely agree with this.  The Type 5 Ho-Ru was only a prototype, whereas the Type 4 Ho-Ro actually saw some use and fits the SP role better anyway; it’s definitely the one to do for a Japanese SP.  There are different versions of the Ho-Ni.  The Type 1 Ho-Ni I fits the TD role best (using the same gun as the Chi-Nu medium tank.)

Type 1 Medium Tank if Type 97 used for Light Tank - Prefer Type 3 Chi-Nu as alternative, but prefer Type 97 as medium tank anyway

The Type 1 Chi-He would look so similar to the Type 97 Shinhoto (having the same turret and a very similar hull) that it would be indistinguishable on this scale. I’m increasingly coming to the view that you should do the Shinhoto version, but don’t try to do both it and the Type 1.  Do the Chi-Nu only if you do 3 sizes of tanks.  My priorities would be 1. Type 97 2. Type 95 and 3 Type 3 Chi-Nu

[DrLarsen]

@coachofmany:

Nagato class was the largest class in tonnage and had the only 16" guns, all others had 14".
This was my choice for a regular battleship. Fuso, Ise as a early war BB. Since WOTC is doing a Kongo class, I went a different route. Yamato would be larger than the Nagato to represent a heavy Battleship.

OK, that helps me understand your thinking a little better.  The Nagato isn’t really much newer, but it is faster and has 16" guns; if you end up eventually doing a US SD or an NC as a “typical” new BB and an Iowa or Montana as a super-BB, this would (combined with the Nevada you’ve already done) give a roughly comparable 3-BB line-up for the 2 Pacific powers.  The “old BB/ new BB” dichotomy only really makes much sense to me though if you make the new ships faster (3 movement?) or the old ships slower (1 movement?)  Has anyone out there tried this and how did it work for you?  I’m still kind of partial to the idea of a CB, though, especially as I already use the oob MB BB’s as “old BB’s”; I might be finding myself doing some mods to oob ala Warrior…

[WARRIOR888]

Coach, in response.

Nagato class was the largest class in tonnage and had the only 16" guns, all others had 14".
This was my choice for a regular battleship. Fuso, Ise as a early war BB. Since WOTC is doing a Kongo class, I went a different route. Yamato would be larger than the Nagato to represent a heavy Battleship

I support this line up from Coach for IJN Battlewagons.  This would give us all 3 very different Japanese Battleships from HBG if he decides to go that route.  We will have two different other IJN battleships, a Kongo from FMG and a new OOB Kongo.

So this would give the IJN 5 different battlships, 6 if you count the original OOB Yamato.
Unless I missed something in all the former comments.

Any other IJN Battleships could possibly be included in a possible future straight IJN naval set like we proposed last year for the USN.
Any Thoughts on this.  WARRIOR888

[WARRIOR888]

DrLarsen:

I assume you modify oob Yamatos into B-64’s by taking an exacto knife to their sides?  How would you do the A-150’s?  Wasn’t the A-140 just an early planned predecessor of the Yamato with all its guns forward?  If you’ve actually done some of those mods, can you show us some pics?  I might experiment with some of the same techniques, since I’ve got so many dozens of them to experiment with… I might also try some similar techniques to make some oob Iowa’s into Alaskas if it works well…

In response to your question I have modified many OOB Battleships across the board.  Now I am recovering from a flood in my basement so it will be awhile before I can them all out and find all my mods and take pictures to show you.  Sometime in July I will get digital photos of my painted mod units and post them here.

Yes to mod Yamatos into B-64s that is how you do it and shorten the sterns and the main Pogoda Superstructure. To make a IJN A-150 you would have to cut two OOB Yamato’s apart and super glue the two forward super structures with the main batteries togaither. Then you have to mod a stern by cutting off a bow on one of them and super gluing a stern on or you get creative with an xacto knife.  To re-inforce your units and give them strength, I use the non embossed side of expired credit cards trimed to the size of each ship.  This keeps your new units firmly assembled and less chance of the glue joints ever breaking apart.
I have modified OOB Iowas into Alaskas and North Carolina’s, Royal Soverigns into Kongos and into Queen Elizabeths.

WARRIOR888