Truck stays.
For those that think the Zero should be included, what would you give up on the current list?
I would say that since there are no paratroopers in this set, scratch the transport plane and release it with the next set. It is not vital to the game IMO. In terms of getting rid of the Tony, I disagree completely (I know everyone has their own opinion :-P) Here’s why:
1. It’s an army fighter, so it is different from all the others that were used in the navy. It could have a different purpose, perhaps in China, India, and some islands.
2. It is a very distinct shape/mold, which I always enjoy, as it brings variety to the board. It looks great.
In my opinion, get rid of the transport plane or one of the BBs for the Zero. I know they are great to have as the Japanese, but 4 BBs (3 + 1 OOB) is a lot, and they are not purchased much after the initial setup, whereas planes are much more universally used and distributed.
@coachofmany:
Truck stays.
Thank you
And Japan is getting a heavy tank, everyone is. It’s going to be either the IS-2 or Tiger from '41. I know japan didn’t have tigers and UK & USA didn’t have IS-2, but they still work.
i’ve always hoped the US would get Pershing maybe in a future set. but i dont mind the japanese player having to use tigers as heavy, since they probably wont be buying nay anyways. and about the tony that is the same kind of argument about the p38 it looks completely unique army fighter but still HBG made a war-hawk and a mustang even though those 2 Army fighters look alike at the scale. and no one complained about that.
i’m hoping for a pershing and b-29 in future set.
The problem with a heavy japanese tank is: what they called heavy would be a light tank in the german or russian army. Same for a heavy tank for italy. I believe (and i’m being to lazy to look it up right now) that the “heavy” japanese tank mounted a 57mm gun. That’s a smaller gun than the Sherman, Panzer IV, T-34, late model Panzer III. And those are all Medium to Light Tanks, depending on the tank. 88mm for the Tiger, 122mm for the IS-2, 90mm for the Pershing. Nothing the Japanese fielded or planned to field stacked up against this tanks. They had Tank Destroyers that had the gun but not the armor to compare to these tanks.
That’s why I want a medium tank for my japanese collection and I’m fine with using a Tiger in Japanese color for a heavy.
i’m hoping for a pershing and b-29 in future set.
The problem with a heavy japanese tank is: what they called heavy would be a light tank in the german or russian army. Same for a heavy tank for italy. I believe (and i’m being to lazy to look it up right now) that the “heavy” japanese tank mounted a 57mm gun. That’s a smaller gun than the Sherman, Panzer IV, T-34, late model Panzer III. And those are all Medium to Light Tanks, depending on the tank. 88mm for the Tiger, 122mm for the IS-2, 90mm for the Pershing. Nothing the Japanese fielded or planned to field stacked up against this tanks. They had Tank Destroyers that had the gun but not the armor to compare to these tanks.
That’s why I want a medium tank for my japanese collection and I’m fine with using a Tiger in Japanese color for a heavy.
i completely agree.and i will be doing the same
On a side note. I will be using IS-2s for US and UK heavy tanks atleast until I get something better.
i’ve always hoped the US would get Pershing maybe in a future set. but i dont mind the japanese player having to use tigers as heavy, since they probably wont be buying nay anyways. and about the tony that is the same kind of argument about the p38 it looks completely unique army fighter but still HBG made a war-hawk and a mustang even though those 2 Army fighters look alike at the scale. and no one complained about that.
A Pershing would be SWEET! :-o
Idk, maybe I’m alone in support of the Tony- I can sort of understand the Warhawk and the Mustang…different wing shapes and noses. I guess that could be argued for all planes. I just love the pointed nose of the Tony and the fact that it is an army fighter, not associated with the navy.
My two cents about the Japanese heavy tank: I don’t think it’s necessary. as Yavid pointed out, a Japanese heavy tank is wimpy compared to others. and when would you need a heavy tank?
don’t get me wrong I would love a Type 97 Chi-Ha for a light tank opition. That way people do have the opition of using the Chi-ha for a light, the OOB for Medium, and/or the Tiger for Heavy if they want to. But the depressate search for a heavy japanese tank I think is pointless.
I’ve always been more of a fan of the Oscar over the Tony and only because the Oscar was in an Axis and Allies expansion already. I believe it was Dateline WW2 but i could be wrong, but that’s besides the point. But if you do the Oscar or the Tony it doesn’t matter to me. Between the Zero, Fw-190, Oscar and Tony I’m sure I can find a use for all 4.
With '41 coming out it relieves the need for an alt. aircraft carrier, heavy tank, alt. battleship. Which are all very popular. I think '41 is amazing when it comes to giving you opitions and HBG should be concerned with filling holes left after that. I also think they should give serious consideration to an AA Artillery a unit promised to us in AA '42 2nd edition.
The important things to me coming from a HBG set is a 4 engine Japanese bomber, a light tank, different Infantry (either SNLF or paratrooper), a truck, and a mech inf.
no Mini subs ?
i’ve always hoped the US would get Pershing maybe in a future set. but i dont mind the japanese player having to use tigers as heavy, since they probably wont be buying nay anyways. and about the tony that is the same kind of argument about the p38 it looks completely unique army fighter but still HBG made a war-hawk and a mustang even though those 2 Army fighters look alike at the scale. and no one complained about that.
a Pershing would be great for a heavy for the US, and i can see what you are trying to say with the p38. just because it looks different doesn’t mean its the best choice.i still hope to see the KI-100, Oscar, and a new Zero to represent a Naval fighter.
@coachofmany:
Truck stays.
Thank you very much.
As for a Japanese Heavy Tank piece, I think you guys are kind of missing the point. Yes, Japanese tanks (and Italian Tanks for that matter) were a cut below similarly classed tanks in Germany, Russia and America. The Type 97 Chi-Ha, Japan’s medium tank, was totally outclassed by the M-4 Sherman and was just barely comparable to the M-5 Stuart (America’s Light tank). Heck, the Type 95 Ha-Go, Japan’s light tank, had armor so thin it could be penetrated by .50 caliber bullets and even .30 caliber AP ammo. Pretty pathetic for an “armored” vehicle.
The point I’m trying to make is this isn’t necessarily “Real World” land where we have to stick to the actual statistics and capabilities of the pieces represented. This is “Axis & Allies Game” land where we can fudge a little on actual stats yet have the pieces be representative of the country that made them. For example, in our current OOB pieces, USA has the M-4 Sherman while Germany has the Pzkpw V Panther. In actual battle conditions, Shermans really couldn’t stand up to Panthers. In fact, neither could Matildas. Also, the Type 95 was NO match for a Sherman, T-34 or Matilda. However, for game purposes, ALL tanks attack and defend at 3. So in our games, a British Matilda could end up blasting a German Panther right off the map. A Type 95 could reduce a T-34 to scrap.
So, if we get a Japanese (or Italian) tank piece that was considered “heavy” by them, even though it barely compared to “mediums” for other countries in the real world, for the game we could decide that this tank had thicker armor and a bigger gun. The main reason that I would like to see a Japanese Heavy Tank piece is because I don’t want to use a Tiger in Japanese color. I want something that LOOKS like it is Japanese made. Just like we use Carro Armatos for Italian tanks. In real life they were outclassed by most Allied tanks but at least they LOOK Italian. I can always pretend they were a little tougher than they actually were for game purposes.
That being said, I also understand that it would take a lot of time trying to research a sculpt for a Japanese Heavy tank and that time could be better spent filling that slot with something else that might be more useful as far as Japan is concerned and more accessible to research. So, if space in the set is limited and a Japanese Heavy Tank needs to be sacrificed for another piece that might work better, then I would be cool with that. I would like to see all nations get heavy, medium and light tanks, but I think most people are right that Japan probably wouldn’t use heavy tanks like other countries.
Gentlemen, The Imperial Japanese Army was developing Heavy Tanks in WWII
Here is proof. Go to this link and you will even see a picture of one. This thing looks impressive. If the Japanese had these at Guadacanal the Marines would have been in serious trouble.
Japan’s Heavy Type 4 Chi-To heavy tanks - World War II Vehicles
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/japan/tanks-heavy/type-4-chi-to.asp
•Prototypes: 6
•Type 4 Chi-To: 23, 61◦Manufacturer: Mitsubishi 3, Kobe-Seiko 3
Specifications Type 4 Chi-To Crew Unknown, 51 Physical Characteristics Weight 60,000 lb 30 tons1 Length w/gun
20.75’1 Length w/o gun Height 9.4’1 width 9.4’1 Ground clearance Ground contact length Ground pressure
Turret ring diameter Armament Main 75 mm2 75 mm Type 41,3 Secondary MG 7.7 mm MG, hull, coaxial 2: 7.7 mm MG1 2: MGs2 Side arms Quantity Main Armor Thickness (mm) 12 - 751, 753 Hull Front, Upper Hull Front, Lower Engine (Make / Model) Air cooled1 Cylinders V-121 Net HP 4001,3 Transmission Fuel type Diesel1 Octane
Capacity
Performance Speed - Road 28 mph1 Speed - Cross Country
So if we need a Japanese Heavy Tank how about this one?
WARRIOR888
Gentlemen,
Here is another Japanese WWII pro-type heavy tank.
O-I Super Heavy Tank The picture of this one it was almost the size of a German King Tiger II or a JadgTiger.
This Japanese prototype was a multi-turreted tank equipped with a 105 and a 45mm cannon,plus three 7.7mm machine guns.The maximum thickness of the armor was said to be around 200mm
According to Japanese sources the prototype(estimated weight 120 tons) was fielded in Manchuria for operative tests.
http://www.historum.com/war-military-history/36877-super-heavy-tanks.html
Anyone have any other ideas?
WARRIOR888
Gentlemen,
Here is another one, only one pro=ytpe built, no picture found yet.
Type 95 Heavy Tank
Type Heavy Tank Place of origin Japan
Specifications
Weight 26 t Length 21.25 ft.Width 8.8 ft. Height 9.5 ft.
Crew 6
–-------------------------------------------------
Armor 12-30mm
Main armament 1x 70mm tank gun
Secondary armament 1x 37mm tank gun, 2x 6.5mm MG
Engine Aircraft Type 6 cyl liquid cooled 290hp
Suspension Leaf-Spring
Speed 13.7 mph
WARRIOR888
the problem with all 3 of those tanks is basically the same. they were prototypes. and other than the o-1 they weren’t heavy either. the chi-ho had thinner armor and smaller gun than the Sherman. the type 95 had armor almost half as thin as the stuart with again a smaller gun than the Sherman. And it was slow to top it all off.
I still feel we would be better off using a more iconic japanese tank such as the Type 97 Chi-Ha over prototype, one of a kinds, or dreams of an engineer. IF japan needs a heavy tank let it just be the tiger from '41 game and let HBG focus on iconic pieces that are missing or almost made the cut. I’m not a fan of the fact HBG is using the KV-2 or the Ju-488 because they have that missing X factor (mass production) that would have made it an iconic piece. I would have much much much rathered a KV-1.
I’ve heard they are only planning on 7 more sets total and after it’s all said and done I don’t want to look back and say why did they make this but this is still missing. Example I don’t want to say why a KV-2 but no B-29? Doing any of the tanks you meantioned would lead to why the O-1 but no V-2?
Yavid,
Understand that I am just pointing out that the Japanese were actually working on heavy tank designs.
I have even found another pro-type of a Japanese Tiger. No data but an excellent drawing. The Germans actually were transfering several Panthers, Stug IIIs, Stukas and 88 AA guns to Japan. The ship carrying the Panthers and 2 crated Stukas was sunk the 2 ea 88 AAs and Stug IIIs actually made it. So there was a good chance that several Tigers could have ended up in the Japanese Army.
I am not suggesting FMG or Coach build any of them.
So if we end up using an OOB Tiger to Get a Mogami, Tony or something else actually iconic it is ok by me.
WARRIOR888
Gentlemen,
Here is another Japanese WWII pro-type heavy tank.
O-I Super Heavy Tank The picture of this one it was almost the size of a German King Tiger II or a JadgTiger.This Japanese prototype was a multi-turreted tank equipped with a 105 and a 45mm cannon,plus three 7.7mm machine guns.The maximum thickness of the armor was said to be around 200mm
According to Japanese sources the prototype(estimated weight 120 tons) was fielded in Manchuria for operative tests.
http://www.historum.com/war-military-history/36877-super-heavy-tanks.html
Anyone have any other ideas?
WARRIOR888
this kinda looks like the french heavy tank
Gentlemen,
Here is another Japanese WWII pro-type heavy tank.
O-I Super Heavy Tank The picture of this one it was almost the size of a German King Tiger II or a JadgTiger.This Japanese prototype was a multi-turreted tank equipped with a 105 and a 45mm cannon,plus three 7.7mm machine guns.The maximum thickness of the armor was said to be around 200mm
According to Japanese sources the prototype(estimated weight 120 tons) was fielded in Manchuria for operative tests.
http://www.historum.com/war-military-history/36877-super-heavy-tanks.html
Anyone have any other ideas?
WARRIOR888
this kinda looks like the french heavy tank
You gotta scroll down the page pretty far. It’s titled as an O-I.
Gentlemen,
Here is another Japanese WWII pro-type heavy tank.
O-I Super Heavy Tank The picture of this one it was almost the size of a German King Tiger II or a JadgTiger.This Japanese prototype was a multi-turreted tank equipped with a 105 and a 45mm cannon,plus three 7.7mm machine guns.The maximum thickness of the armor was said to be around 200mm
According to Japanese sources the prototype(estimated weight 120 tons) was fielded in Manchuria for operative tests.
http://www.historum.com/war-military-history/36877-super-heavy-tanks.html
Anyone have any other ideas?
WARRIOR888
this kinda looks like the french heavy tank
It does have similar charectristics to a French Char 2 C which actually 10 were built and used in operations.
The Germans didn’t have anything even close to it.
WARRIOR888
