Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

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…)

Shokaku is what the OOB looks like, though it says its the Shinano. The japanese carrier choice. This choice should convey the classic look of a japanese carrier with a very small superstructure and the classic pylons under the flight deck in front and or back

You think the oob looks like a Shokaku?  Are you smoking something?  (Just kiding :-D)

Well, OK, I’ll concede that it is a little indistinct; I think the oob Yamato looks like a hybrid Kongo/Yamato, with its disproportionately pagoda-esque superstructure so maybe I should give the oob Shinano’s another look.  But in any case, to the extent that this is true, it actually makes my case that the oob pieces can fill in for more common early-war types, especially since, (AND THIS WILL BE KEY!) they will be a little bit smaller, since FMG has said he’s making his a little bigger to show more detail.  If you convince FMG to make a bunch of smaller/ early-war units that are all physically a little bigger than the oob pieces, it would look absolutely RIDICULOUS to then use the OOB pieces as “super” versions of bigger and nicer-looking “typical” pieces.  It makes far more sense to have FMG do all the “best and biggest”, and we’ll at least have one consistent-looking set that is consistent.  Then we can use oob for “typicals” as a stop-gap and Coach can do a consistent early-war set.  Then we’d have two consistent sets and one inconsistent oob set that we can gradually dispense with, instead of 2 inconsistent ones… which then would make it almost impossible for yet a third attempt to have even a chance at consistency!

FMG has already picked a set of mostly the “best and biggest” for Italy and Germany; it would be a big mistake for him to then give the allies nothing by obsolete “death traps” (in your own words).  Yes the axis had the jump on the allies in new equipment at war’s beginning, but why stick them with nothing but “garbage fire control” (in your own words) in their tanks and BB’s for the rest of the war.  The whole dynamic of both A&A and WW2 is that the allies have their responses coming, in production, technology, numbers, etc., but will they get there in time… that’s the whole drama.  Stick the US with obsolete stuff and you’re basically predetermining that the cavalry will never come… and then where’s the drama!  The outcome is over, the “evil empires” have won and they might as well start learning German and Japanese…