Dauntless is close, but the leading wing edge and side profile don’t match the OOB sculpt.
Yep you’re right. I can tell the difference in real-life or drawings on a larger size pic. At this scale WOTC didn’t exactly put a lot of detail in theirs. I think the HBG is much better looking. You almost can’t see the ball turret on the OOB WOTC. I just got AAP40.1 in august and could’ve sworn they have US tac bomber listed as a Dauntless in the rulebook, but hey I’ve only looked at it twice just to get it punched and bagged for play later.
BTW I just got my Avengers today along with my Corsairs, Warhawks and Mustangs. I’m alittle bit down about my Warhawks and Mustangs though. Thier molding isn’t the best and they seem a bit on the frail side. These will definately need paint and glaze at a minimum to give them some substance. Same with FW190, although light seems to be molded better
Yep you’re right. I can tell the difference in real-life or drawings on a larger size pic. At this scale WOTC didn’t exactly put a lot of detail in theirs. I think the HBG is much better looking. You almost can’t see the ball turret on the OOB WOTC. I just got AAP40.1 in august and could’ve sworn they have US tac bomber listed as a Dauntless in the rulebook, but hey I’ve only looked at it twice just to get it punched and bagged for play later.
Well, I was pretty sure, but your comment made me question myself before I corrected your correction. I do agree that it is pretty hard to tell. And yes, the HBG ones are much nicer.
BTW I just got my Avengers today along with my Corsairs, Warhawks and Mustangs. I’m alittle bit down about my Warhawks and Mustangs though. Thier molding isn’t the best and they seem a bit on the frail side. These will definately need paint and glaze at a minimum to give them some substance. Same with FW190, although light seems to be molded better
I had similar… concerns. They do look very nice, but the moulding is a little thinner than the OOB pieces. I am looking forward to comparing them with the new OOB Spring '41 pieces that I ordered.
The 41 planes look a lot better IMO. The HBG FW190 isn’t that bad but it doesn’t feel nearly as solid as the OOB. I may just paint the FW190 solid gray or black, stain and seal them jut to give them some weight.
I will be converting my HBG FW190s into Ki43s as the OOB FW190s are perfectly fine to me and scale well with the other pieces.
Like LHoffman, I prefer to use OOB units when possible since I already have the pieces. I’m thinking also of using the B25s as
USAAF Tac bombers by converting them into A20 Havocs since the land forces didn’t use Navy Planes.
I will be converting my HBG FW190s into Ki43s as the OOB FW190s are perfectly fine to me and scale well with the other pieces.
Like LHoffman, I prefer to use OOB units when possible since I already have the pieces. I’m thinking also of using the B25s as
USAAF Tac bombers by converting them into A20 Havocs since the land forces didn’t use Navy Planes.
That will be cool. I’d like to see those. I am personally less concerned with having every unit-type be accurate for its usage in the game (e.g. having A-20s on land and SBDs/TBFs on the water) however, it will still be very cool to know that the option is out there. Plus they will just look great, so maybe I’d have to get some for that reason.
Wil & Lucas,
I will be converting my HBG FW190s into Ki43s as the OOB FW190s are perfectly fine to me and scale well with the other pieces.
Like LHoffman, I prefer to use OOB units when possible since I already have the pieces. I’m thinking also of using the B25s as
USAAF Tac bombers by converting them into A20 Havocs since the land forces didn’t use Navy Planes.
––You both make some valid, worthwhile points regarding unit sizes,…very logical.
----As I also already have both OOB & HBG FW-190s and P-40s, modifying some
HBG FW-190s into Ki-43s seems very interesting to me. :-D
––And as far as A-20s, I had inquired of HBG about their making some when they were planning their Japanese and American Naval Supplements a year or so ago. Too bad the sets were post-poned.
––I had originally intended to introduce a few new unit types, one type being
“Attack Aircraft” (B-25, A-20, etc.), another being “Fighter-Bombers” (P-47, F-4U, etc.) as well as some others. By moving to a 12-sidied die we have enough ‘wiggle room’ to make them viable.
––I hadn’t mentioned any of these projects other than the B-25 “Commerce Destroyer” low-level, parafragging, straffers as we already have soo many units in the que for the near future.
----Wil, I’m truly happy that you’re investigating the ‘possibilities’ of these projects. And with your talents for modification, and Lucas’s painting talent, I’m certain anything that the “WARMACHINE Team” turns out will be outstanding!
“Tall Paul”
This is a Sherman from Anniversary Ed. and the HBG Sherman Firefly from the US Marines set. While you can see it is a bit shorter than the OOB piece, it is much more detailed and Sherman “looking”. Can’t say that this is much of a contest. If HBG starts selling these individually (at the time of purchase they do not) I will have to buy a couple more.
Um not sure how to bring this up but the HBG Sherman is a flame throwing tank, It was called Sherman Zippo. The Sherman Firefly was a British Sherman with a 17-pounder anti-tank main gun instead of the stock American gun
This is a Sherman from Anniversary Ed. and the HBG Sherman Firefly from the US Marines set. While you can see it is a bit shorter than the OOB piece, it is much more detailed and Sherman “looking”. Can’t say that this is much of a contest. If HBG starts selling these individually (at the time of purchase they do not) I will have to buy a couple more.
Um not sure how to bring this up but the HBG Sherman is a flame throwing tank, It was called Sherman Zippo. The Sherman Firefly was a British Sherman with a 17-pounder anti-tank main gun instead of the stock American gun
Correct. I was under an improper assumption at the time. A misnomer that the “Firefly” is not the flame-throwing version…
It’s ironic that the flamethrower version of the Sherman was called the Zippo (the name of a popular lighter) because the standard Sherman – whose poorly designed ammunition storage often led it to catch fire when hit – was nicknamed the Ronson (after another popular lighter whose manufacturers claimed that it would “always light the first time”).
Guys,
––Not to ‘nit-pic’, and I hate to disagree, but IMHO the OOB tac-bomber in the above posts and drawings is
definately an SBD Dauntless. Just look at the;
1.) curved wintips (on the Dauntless)
2.) lack of ball turret machinegun (on the Dauntless)
3.) the somewhat narrow fuselage (on the Dauntless).
––The TBD Avenger had a TALL, FAT fuselage that had the radio operater/belly gunner INSIDE the fuselage. The main reason it was nick-named the “Turkey”.
“Tall Paul”
The rule book lists it as such. And I think that’s what its supposed to be. The detail on OOB units isn’t that great so I suppose with some paint and creativity it could be whatever you need it to be LOL.
I’m calling it a Dauntless as I might be using my HBG Avengers differently. To me it looked like a Dauntless and WoTC calls it a Dauntless but they do get stuff wrong sometimes. I suppose when we get some more goodies from HBG for the USN it won’t matter as much. LOL.
@Tall:
Guys,
––Not to ‘nit-pic’, and I hate to disagree, but IMHO the OOB tac-bomber in the above posts and drawings is
definately an SBD Dauntless. Just look at the;
1.) curved wintips (on the Dauntless)
2.) lack of ball turret machinegun (on the Dauntless)
3.) the somewhat narrow fuselage (on the Dauntless).
––The TBD Avenger had a TALL, FAT fuselage that had the radio operater/belly gunner INSIDE the fuselage. The main reason it was nick-named the “Turkey”.“Tall Paul”
Yeah I saw what you saw before. WOTC has it listed as an SBD in the rulebook. However just like all OOB units it can be an approximation. I know the Hellcat from AA50 AAP41 AAGC has been called a Wildcat many times due to the minimum detail in OOB parts. So I could see how one might mistake the Dauntless for an Avenger.
I think for those us with both OOB and HBG US Tacs, WE know the difference LOL. That’s all that matters.
You guys are certainly right. Not sure what I was thinking way back then. I swear I saw that it was labeled an Avenger in some rulebook, but it is definitely a Dauntless, as you originally pointed out Toblerone. When I painted Tall Paul’s units I know we used them as Dauntlesses, which they are perfect for.
Well LH you do really nice paint work. Anybody who can paint the frames of canopies and nose glasses without going insane must do something right!
Well LH you do really nice paint work. Anybody who can paint the frames of canopies and nose glasses without going insane must do something right!
I do try. Glad you like it.
Been a while since I have been in the saddle though.
Guys,
Well LH you do really nice paint work. Anybody who can paint the frames of canopies and nose glasses without going insane must do something right!
––I couldn’t agree more! Although it may already be too late as far as the “insane” thing. haha :-D
––And since the OOB “Hellcats” don’t have the much larger frontal air intake w/scoop, I’ve been using them as Wildcats. I’m pretty certain that HBG is planning to release some real Hellcats in the future and that will give us some additional a/c units.
––IMHO, with distinct paint schemes, it should be easy to identify the “Early-War (Navy) Fighter” “Wildcats” from the "Late-War (Navy) Fighter “Hellcats”. Especialy since the Hellcats will have the overall Dark Blue scheme w/different national ensignia.
----Shown below are some of Lucas’s fine paint jobs on some “Early-War (Navy) Fighters”. Notice the Red/White rudder stripes and Red “dots” in the national insignia.
----P.S.-ALL of the pilots of these real a/c won the Medal of Honor. Can you identify them?
“Tall Paul”
Okay here’s one for “y’all”….
What do you use the old Stuka’s for? They’re smaller as well as the HBG FW190 is smaller than the OOB FW190. Personally I’m thinking “naval”. Not too historical perhaps but any German carrier is a “What If?”.
Going with your idea, you could use the smaller Stukas for Ju-87C variants which were being designed to carry torpedoes. Now you have a dive bomber and torpedo bomber for Germany!
The old ones from Revised? … To be honest, they are so terrible now (compared to everything else we have) I won’t use them for anything.
