Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

@dadler12:

The Hellcat came in Guadalcanal and Anniversary.  1940 games come with the P38 and the Dauntless SBD.  I agree 100% on the carriers Dr. Larsen.

Just to be fair to IL, he does mention the Lexington class also, which was an excellent carrier… and a good-looking ship, too.  I still think the Essex is a better choice, though.  The 2 Lexingtons were converted battlecruisers, so they were really sort of “one-offs” (or I guess technically, more of a 2-off) that were never going to be repreated.  The Essexes were what the US built when they were finally freed from treaty limitations as the new “standard” full-function fleet carriers, and it was, indeed, they more than any other single class of ship that won the war.  Sure, the US made a great series of excellent ships in unprecedented numbers in nearly every category: BB’s (Iowa’s), CA’s (Baltimores), CL’s (Clevelands), DD’s (Fletchers), along with an even larger number of lesser-known ships in categories that get less attention (CVE’s, DE’s, subs, transports, oilers, etc.)  The whole functioned together symbiotically… but the tip of the spear was the air power provided by those Essex-class carriers and that’s what made the US drive through the Central Pacific in 1944 unstoppable.  Yep, if there’s one ship type that could be said to have won the Pacific War it was the 24 (yes, 24!!!) Essex-class carriers that the US built, an ever-growing armada that, from 1943 on, turned the tide and took the Pacific Ocean back.

While I’m thinking about naval pieces…

I think the obvious cruiser choices would be either the Cleveland (CL) or Baltimore (CA) class.  The Wichita is a bit of an odd choice to my way of thinking, FMG, since it was a one-off (though it is so similar to the Baltimore class that on this scale that’s probably not a big deal.)  The New Orleans was actually a CL, not a CA, IL, though some would argue that the large 6"-gun allied CL’s were the equal of any CA… (Some say the US ones were even better with their rapid-firing main guns…) But anyway, my thought is that the “reinforcements” we bring into the fray should reflect the sort of reinforcements in any given category that the various powers either did, or would have, brought into the fray as the war went on, not the obsolete older equipment that most had to begin the war with.  For me, that means Clevelands or Baltimores in the cruiser category.

Now, in the DD category, the oob piece already is the Fletcher, probably the most iconic DD class of the war, so I say go with the next one down the line, the Sumner class, which would also be a (slight) upgrade, since their twin turrets gave them a little more firepower against both air and sea targets.  Would that extra 5"/38 be enough to be worth another IPC and another notch up on a 12-sider…?  Arguable either way, I’d guess, but it would at least give us the option for house rules purposes plus a little more visual variety in the fleet if one’s own answer to this Q is “no.”

For the TD, I think the M36 Jackson is a better choice than the M10, as the M10 was only a little better, firepower-wise, that the early-war Shermans and no advantage at all against the late-war Shermans.  Speaking of which, FMG, I’m hoping your Shermans will be late-war models with the longer guns, which will give us more house rules flexibility.  btw, both the M10 and the M36 TD were based on the Sherman chassis, and the M10 cannon was the same as the 76mm used on late-war Shermans, so with an M10 you basically get a late-war Sherman without a roof!  No point in that, I say!  If you insist on giving us a TD instead of a Pershing, at least give us an M36 with its excellent 90 mm!

I’m wondering about the battleships.  Why go with the Pennsylvania class?  That class includes the USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona, both commissioned in 1916.  Seems like kind of an old model of BB to go with.  I would have went with the North Carolina or South Dakota class if not the Iowa class.  Then again, an older battleship like that will make for more variety.

I did a little reading up on the USS Wasp.  There were actually two carriers in WW2 with that name.  The second was one of the 24 Essex class carriers.  The first was actually in a class of it’s own and was basically a smaller version of the Yorktown and Enterprise.  It went out with very little in the way of armor protection and no protection from torpedos.  In fact, it was sunk by a Japanese submarine I-19.  It kind of surprises me that WOTC would base the US Carrier piece on such a flawed model.  Of course, they also made the British BB Royal Oak, which had a rather ignonimous fate as well.

@knp7765:

The first was actually in a class of it’s own and was basically a smaller version of the Yorktown and Enterprise.  It went out with very little in the way of armor protection and no protection from torpedos.  In fact, it was sunk by a Japanese submarine I-19.  It kind of surprises me that WOTC would base the US Carrier piece on such a flawed model.  Of course, they also made the British BB Royal Oak, which had a rather ignonimous fate as well.

cough Japanese carrier cough

@knp7765:

I’m wondering about the battleships.  Why go with the Pennsylvania class?  That class includes the USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona, both commissioned in 1916.  Seems like kind of an old model of BB to go with.  I would have went with the North Carolina or South Dakota class if not the Iowa class.  Then again, an older battleship like that will make for more variety.

I did a little reading up on the USS Wasp.  There were actually two carriers in WW2 with that name.  The second was one of the 24 Essex class carriers.  The first was actually in a class of it’s own and was basically a smaller version of the Yorktown and Enterprise.  It went out with very little in the way of armor protection and no protection from torpedos.  In fact, it was sunk by a Japanese submarine I-19.  It kind of surprises me that WOTC would base the US Carrier piece on such a flawed model.  Of course, they also made the British BB Royal Oak, which had a rather ignonimous fate as well.

If you take a careful look at the oob mini of the carrier, it’s pretty clear that it’s intended to be the earlier Wasp.  And yes, it was an extremely odd choice for all of the reasons you mentioned.  Mainly though, I think it was an odd choice because it was an atypical ship; its lack of armor and torpedo protection were not really so far behind the standards of its day.  Keep in mind that because the US had the insane idea that they should be honest and honorable with regard to their treaty limitations that their ships in the first half of the war were working with all sorts of disadvantages that they did not have with the unlimited ships that the US built during the war.  It’s been said with much truth that the Pacific War was won not by one US fleet, but by 2 fleets: the first one which fought the Japanese fleet to nearly mutual annhiliation over the first year of the war and the second one which the US built of all-new ship types that then went on to conquer the Pacific.

This is why I’m so in favor of FMG doing the Essex: it was the carrier the US built when it wasn’t restricting itself anymore and the one with which it won the war.

@DrLarsen:

Mainly though, I think it was an odd choice because it was an atypical ship; its lack of armor and torpedo protection were not really so far behind the standards of its day.

There was certain amount of debate within naval circles at the time over the usefulness of armour for carriers.  One argument made by the anti-armour side was that the best way to defend a carrier from air attack was to shoot down the enemy’s planes before they got anywhere near the carrier…and that therefore armour should be sacrificed to enable the carrier to carry more fighter planes, which in turn would provide a better combat air patrol around the ship.

@CWO:

@DrLarsen:

Mainly though, I think it was an odd choice because it was an atypical ship; its lack of armor and torpedo protection were not really so far behind the standards of its day.

There was certain amount of debate within naval circles at the time over the usefulness of armour for carriers.  One argument made by the anti-armour side was that the best way to defend a carrier from air attack was to shoot down the enemy’s planes before they got anywhere near the carrier…and that therefore armour should be sacrificed to enable the carrier to carry more fighter planes, which in turn would provide a better combat air patrol around the ship.

True enough, though those debates were primarily about deck armor rather than side armor or torpedo defenses.  And at those times, for the Pacific context, the non-armored-deck camp (whose approach was followed by both US and Japanese designers) was probably right, as the British armored-deck carriers didn’t really come into their own until the last, most-intense, Japanese kamikaze waves… and then only by switching to mostly US carrier planes and packing more of them on than their carriers were designed for…

IL I don’t disagree with you on that they should be different but I think FMG’s pieces may end up being superior to Wizards of the Craps. I plan on replacing mine with theirs. I think the OOB pieces will look inferior to FMGS. We shall see.

@Imperious:

I’m wondering about the battleships.  Why go with the Pennsylvania class?  That class includes the USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona, both commissioned in 1916.  Seems like kind of an old model of BB to go with.  I would have went with the North Carolina or South Dakota class if not the Iowa class.  Then again, an older battleship like that will make for more variety.

This suggestion would allow the US to have an early war battleship. Of her 16 or so starting battleships, they all more or less looked like this Pennsylvania class.  The OOB unit and the FMG choice are very close making them both too similar. The Iowa and Missouri class are too similar looking

The new pieces should be different from OOB wherever possible. IMO

The Essex class carrier looks too much like the OOB piece. If you had the Lexington it would be a different looking unit and convey an early war looking unit.  Compare the Essex to the Enterprise….the difference is negligible.

Yeah, I don’t think that’s true at all; now if you compare the (original) Wasp to the Yorktown class (which included the Enterprise, the original Hornet and the original Yorktown) there you see nearly identical ships; as I said earlier, the Wasp was just a Yorktown class shortened a little so as to squeak the US total carrier tonnage in under the treaty limits.  But I don’t agree that the Essex looks too much like the Wasp.  I mean, yeah, OK they’re both flat-tops with superstructures… but the superstructures aren’t the same, the deck shape isn’t the same, the elevator arrangement isn’t the same, the Essex has the superfiring twin 5"/38’s on either side of the superstructure, and it’s significantly bigger.  And the last is key to me: if FMG’s ships are going to be a little bigger to better show some detail, I’d rather them start with the biggest, best ships in each category and use the smaller, less distinct-looking oob units for smaller ships than have FMG make larger mini’s of what should be smaller ships!

I think the same principle should go fo everything FMG makes: if the pieces will be slightly bigger (and we know they’ll be the best, most detailed plastic mini’s in this scale), he should do the biggest and best units in each category…) that means Tiger, Pershing & JS2 tanks, Iowa & Yamato BB’s, Essex & Taiho CV’s, etc.

I do think it’s a shame that the oob pieces are an odd mixture of early and late units, but their detail isn’t that great, so if FMG’s will be slightly bigger and clearly better, they should go for the top-end units in every category, and we can overlook the tiny details where the oob units aren’t consistently “early war” in their look, just was we overlook their odd mixture now!  Hopefullly, we can then get Coach to do a slightly smaller series of consistently early-war units (like he’s going to do for German tanks, etc.)  I’d rather have FMG do a consistent set; since his pieces will be te best, he should mould the best models in every category.

I want the T-34 for russia and the spitfire for UK. Those units were the icons for those countrys and I want to see them done right.FMG will do that it appears. I see your point of view IL. I am wishing they would have done the Mark 5 for Germany.Beggars can’t be choosers.

@Imperious:

The yamato is a terrible choice for Japanese BB. They only made two of these and the other 18 or so battleships looked like the Kongo or Nagato

It would be a tragic repeat of a mistake. The classic Japanese battleship is the Pagoda looking ships. The Kongo is the only choice. The OOB Yamato could be an advanced BB design.

In terms of japanese carriers I think most people would like the Kaga, Akagi, or something that looks like a typical japanese carrier.

Taiho is a terrible choice, it looks like every other carrier by UK or USA.

But I don’t agree that the Essex looks too much like the Wasp

In 1/3000 scale most ships like these are too similar from oob. Compare the OOB to any choice. Now since they look similar, the FMG should make a distinct carrier choice.

I think it would look nice to have different looking carriers ( both OOB and FMG) as American carriers for aesthetics. But if you made another OOB “looking piece” the wow factor suffers since these become just like copies of OOB with better detail and that is not the most bang for the buck.

Yes, but you’re overlooking the fact that the Yamato was the only NEW BB the Japanese built.  All the others were just attempts to spruce up their obsolete equipment; and no, it’s not 18, it’s only 10, and the Japanese were planning on building 4 of the Yamato’s until Midway forced them to rethink their priorities… no Japanese BB class had more than 4 in it.  This means that the Yamato’s would have been tied with the Kongo’s for largest class and would have made up over 80% of the total tonnage of the IJN BB fleet within a year of Midway, if Midway hadn’t been such a disaster.

Neither Kaga nor Akagi can be said to be typical in any way; like the Lexington’s, they were conversions of ships otherwise slated for scrapping due to the Washington Treaty… both were a one-off (not even the same class as each other, either!)  And neither was a particularly handsome ship… putting all this together makes both of them absolutely a TERRIBLE choice for FMG’s lone Japanese CV mold.  Yes, the Taiho was a unique ship, but it at least points to the Japanese ideal for what they would have built more of if they had the chance!  The only Japanese carrier that could be fairly said to be “typical” would be the Hiryu/Soryu/Unryu series, which weren’t identical, but were cousins if not sisters… and they were planning to build many more Unryu’s.  But these were smallish and unimpressive ships.  The Shokaku-Zuikaku twins would be much better choices if you insist on “typical.”  But with Japanese warships, “typical” is not easy to determine, since they have so few large classes of ships and NOT A ONE large class of large ships!

Now at least the Lexington has the advantage of being a handsome ship that would look great given the FMG treatment.  I still prefer the Essex, though.  Like I said, it’s the ship that won the war!  How much more pivotal could a ship be!  And with 24 of them made, we’re talking about a ship that was made in greater #'s than all the other carrier classes in the world combined up to that time!

The Pennsylvannia class would be a terrible choice for FMG, too!  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.  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!

But my bottom line is that FMG should just simply do the best in every category that was fielded in #'s.

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

@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…)