Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

Isn’t the  P38 an early war fighter for the United States? So Fmg would be filling in the gap between early and late if they were to produce Mustangs. So I still push for P51 Mustang. i find it kind of funny how FMG hasn’t replied about the Americans in a while, i wonder if its already to late to make these changes =/

If we followed what Larson wants the standard German fighter should be the Horton flying wing or He-162, and the standard German tank should be the Maus. Yea good move.  Just inflate the units like Pershing tank of which a whole 20 or so saw service in the last month of the war. Lets just ignore all the units that fought in 1939-1943 and keep making games based on 1940 using units that didn’t exist till 1944 or 1945 like the Pershing tank. because we must ignore old units with distinguished service records and hype stupid drawing board uber late war units that “could have seen action”

Dude, IL, you’re simply misrepresenting my points entirely.  I’ve already conceded that maybe the Pershing would be best as a “tech” unit, and offered the Late-War Sherman and M36 as reasonable compromises, both of which say plenty of action, and both of which were produced in greater numbers than EITHER Tiger variation.  But note that the Pershing was far from being a “stupid drawing board” unit.  It was not at all a technological stretch for the US automotive industry and was only delayed by poor Ordnance Dept decision-making.  Here’s a quote from Wikipedia on the events that prevented the Pershing’s fielding in time for Normandy:

Gen. Lesley J. McNair was head of Army Ground Forces. McNair, an artilleryman, championed the tank destroyer doctrine within the U.S. Armored Forces. Tanks were to support the infantry, exploit breakthroughs, and avoid tank-to-tank battles. Enemy tanks were to be engaged by the tank destroyer force, composed of a mix of towed and self-propelled tank destroyers. Towed “tank destroyers” were towed antitank guns. Self-propelled tank destroyers, called “gun motor carriages”, were similar to tanks but were lightly armored with open topped turrets. The tank destroyers were supposed to be faster and carry a more powerful anti-tank gun than tanks; armor was sacrificed for speed. The tank destroyer doctrine played a large role in the lack of urgency in improving the firepower of the M4 Sherman, as the emphasis was on its role as infantry support.[37]

McNair approved the 76 mm upgrade to the M4 Sherman and production of the 90 mm M36 tank destroyer, but he staunchly opposed development of the T26 and other proposed heavy tanks during the crucial period of 1943 because he saw no “battle need” for them.

In mid-1943, Lt. General Devers, commander of U.S. forces in the European Theater of Operations (ETO), asked for 250 T26s for use in the invasion of France. McNair refused. Devers appealed to General George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff. Marshall summarily ordered the tanks to be provided to the ETO as soon as they could be produced. Soon after the Normandy invasion, General Dwight D. Eisenhower urgently requested heavy tanks (now designated M26 Pershing), but McNair’s continued opposition delayed production. General Marshall intervened again and the tanks were eventually brought into production. However, only a few saw combat on February 25, 1945, too late to have any effect on the battlefield.[38]

This was no “pipe-dream” flying wing prototype here!  This was actually technology that was ready and available for production, but was held up by the stubbornness of a few bureaucratic big-wigs.  Since the Germans did take the step to field a very comparable tank, I’m prepared to say, yes, give the Germans a heavy tank tech for free as a national advantage and make the US invest in it, but I’d also like to see the A&A armchair generals out there not be forced to make the same decisions as old head-full-of-air General McNair.  But since FMG is only doing two tanks, I’ll concede, OK, let’s compromise on the Late-War Sherman and the M36, both of which saw plenty of action and both of which gives FMG some differentiation beyond oob, which in nearly every other category seems to be your over-riding concern!  An early-war Sherman give FMG yet more oob clones…

At the scale of these ships having any japanese carrier that looks like a British carrier is not good enough. It must have the classic small superstructure and pylons under the front and rear flight deck.  If you had to draw a typical japanese carrier it might be the Akagi or Shoho. IDK as long as the Carrier has that classic Japanese “look” to it, easily identifiable….

Yes, I conceded that Taiho looks much like Shinano, but Shokaku looks very different than either and has those typically “Japanese” characteristics, like an open hanger and a small superstructure, without being a mishapen-looking ship like Kaga or Akagi, and is an all-around more-impressive ship than the small, mediocre Hiryu/Soryu/Unryu sisters.  It’s the logical choice for a ship that Typifies the best that Japan produced… and both of them had long and distinguished careers, almost rivalling the Enterprise and Saratoga on the US side… unlike Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga, and Agaki, whose main role was to all get sunk together at Midway…

Now, on the US side, the fact that the New BB’s look much alike is simply an argument for using the oob as North Carolina class/ South Dakota class treaty-BB stand-in’s, whereas FMG doing an Iowa then gives us a true upgrade option.  I just can’t see using the “garbage” oob units (as you describe them) as “upgrades” over FMG’s excellent pieces.  FMG’s pieces should BE the upgrades.  Which is also why I can’t see using the “garbage” oob Yamato as an upgrade over what I expect to be an impressive FMG Japanese BB piece.

Of course, I wish he was doing 2 BB’s for both the US and Japan, one old & one new, but it looks as though that isn’t to be… but then that’s where hopefully Coach will come in to do the old-BB’s.

BOTTOM LINE: I’m not arguing for FMG doing anything rare or not built (you’ll note that even the Pershing was my 3rd option).  I’m arguing for him doing the best units done in quantity:

M36: more made than Tiger I’s, 3x as many as Tiger II’s

Late-War Shermans: more made than all German tanks combined

Iowa: 4 made, as many as any class since WW1, iconic ship, Halsey’s flagship, ship upon which Japan’s very surrender ceremony was performed…

Baltimore: 14 made, as many as Japan had heavy cruisers at the war’s beginning, not including the very similar Wichita and Fargo classes…

Sumner: 58 made

Essex: 24 made, pivotal ship in winning the war

P51: 'nuff said

bomber: B-29 (3,970 made, pivotal in the Pacific War, offers a “heavy bomber” or “long-range bomber” tech upgrade option) or B-24 (18,482 made, pivotal in both theaters)

The M36 is a poor choice in my opinion, the M10 and M18 saw more action.  Id prefer either of those models to an M36.

That would be the Akagi and kaga. These carriers had the best pilots and trained crews. Poor strategy is not taking anything away from them.

Japans only real naval victory came from them.  If you want to compare the service record of the Taiho to the Akagi, you got an uphill argument.

Taiho:

Dude, I’m not arguing for the Taiho.  I’m arguing for the Shokaku, which has all the features you’re looking for, including 2 ships with long and distinguished records.  What “victory” are you talking about for the 4 sunk at Midway?  Pearl Harbor?  Both Shokaku’s were there!  They were there through every important phase from Pearl Harbor to Leyte except Midway.  There is no measure you can choose based on the Kaga or Akagi’s war record, quality, experience, etc., that the 2 Shokaku’s can’t do you one better!  And they were better ships on top of it all!

On cruisers, the oob Portland looks just like the larger Northampton class and almost like your recomendation, the New Orleans class.  One of the newer flush-deck designs… Wichita/Baltimore/Oregon City CA’s or Brooklyn/St. Louis/Cleveland/Fargo CL’s would be far more distinctive from oob.

Note on the distinctitive US WW2 ship “style”: All post-'36 US designs, BB, CB, CA, CL, DD… all of them, had that classic flush-deck look and all of those flush-deckers just simply “look right” next to each other.  These are the “Flush-deck” classes, in order, by category, with not-builts and too-late-for-actions noted in parens and my pics for FMG bolded, FYI:

BB: NC/SD/Iowa/Montana (last not built)

CB: Alaska

CA: Wichita/Baltimore/Oregon City/Des Moines (last too late for action)

CL: Brooklyn/St. Louis/Cleveland/Fargo/Worcester (last too late for action)

CLAA: Atlanta/Oakland/Juneau

DD: Fletcher/Sumner/ Gearing

I think FMG should do all “flush deck” US ships designs, as they would look like a set, like they “belong” together and aren’t just a hodge-podge collection.  Not that he has to do the last one in the line if it was an “almost built” or a “too late for action” model… And I don’t think he’s interested in the “tweener” CB or CLAA categories.  But there are 2-3 choices in every other category that saw plenty of action. Then he or someone can then later do a set of early-war and/or rare/ tech units.  But my bolded recomendations all were built in #'s and saw decisive action.  Yes, they’re all “late war” but the US didn’t even get into the fight until the “mid-to-late” war period had started.  Remember, Pearl Harbor was at the end of 1941, not its beginning… the end of 1942 saw the US and the end of its first of 4 years at war.  Ships coming out in 1943 aren’t that “late” from a US perspective.

Obviously the Sherman must be the tank. no other iconic tank would look right.

Yes, but WHICH Sherman.  I argue for a later model 76mm longer barreled model.  At in a welded rather than a cast hull and the “Easy 8” suspension, and you’ve set it apart from oob without going to something rare in the least.

Similarly, the M36 is much like the M10, but with a better-looking turret, which FMG might be the only one to do justice to it!  Basically, it’s the same thing with a turret swap, which is why they were able to adapt so fast upon meeting so many Panthers and get so many in the field so fast.  (Remember, more made than Tiger I’s and 3x as many as Tiger II’s…)

M36 looks like a Korean war tank, oh wait thats what it was. If they make a second tank it should be a m10 tank destroyer which has a more ww2 ish look. M36 looks clearly like a Korean tank.

No, that is simply wrong.  You must be confusing it with the M26 or M46.  The M36 Jackson was a TD that mated the hull of the M10 to a new turret mounting the 90mm cannon.  It was very much a WW2 weapon system; in fact, it really ended up being essentially a stop-gap because McNair’s bull-headedness made it impossible to get the M26 Pershing out fast enough once they realized how many Panthers the Germans were churning out… By Korea, the US didn’t need M36’s any more because they had plenty of M26’s Pershings and then even M46 Pattons.  (Plus, since the North Koreans had T-34/85’s instead of Panthers, late-model Shermans were actually adequate there anyway…)

As for the 76mm Shermans, they were made in HUGE #'s.  And why would FMG bother making more cast-hull, short-barrelled 75mm Shermans when that’s what we have oob?  I don’t get it: you argue for distinctiveness whenever possible and then here when an opportunity for it presents itself, you say “too late-war…”  Well, iconic US units ARE late war because it took the US time to get in gear, just like in A&A… and besides, oob is early war, why repeat a dull, mediocre piece simply because it is early war?  Sherman variants can be all over the spectrum and all were made in #'s.

Here’s more on the stop-gap nature of the M36 to meet the Panther threat, and the transition from TD’s to M26 Pershings…

A turning point in the future role of the Tank Destroyers occurred at the Remagen Bridgehead on March 7, 1945. The M26 Pershing Tank Platoon, 14th Tank Bn, 9th Armored Division, armed with the 90MM gun, burst into combat action. A group of high ranking general officers, including General Patton, had been advocating the abolishment of the Tank Destroyer Force as far back as 1943. The main argument was that the Tank Destroyer Force had not accomplished the mission of massing to defeat the German panzers, except at the Battle of El Guettar, Tunisia when the 899th TD Bn joined the 601St TD Bn and stopped Gen Rommel’s 10th Panzer Division. The Germans failed to mount a blitzkrieg due to the heavy tank losses in Russia And Allied control of the air space over the battle field, until the Battle of the Bulge. Hitler assembled 2,100 tanks and assault guns for the Ardennes blitzkrieg. The 25 Tank Destroyer Battalions were too spread out over the 80-mile front to mass according to Tank Destroyer doctrine of defense of the blitzkrieg.

The demilitarization of the Tank Destroyer Battalions began in the fall of 1945, without fanfare. Tank Destroyers were no more.

So as WW2 was ending, the US was finally giving up on the whole TD concept.  A few M36’s may have made it to Korea, but there were no longer whole units of them and many more M26’s were in action early in Korea than M36’s.  The M26’s were, in turn, gradually phased out in favor of M46’s as the Korean war dragged on… interestingly, the Sherman M4E8 (“Easy 8”) outlived both the M26 and M36 in usefulness, since it was adequate against T-34/85’s (as it hadn’t been vs. heavier Panthers) and was more mobile than the M26 in the Korean terrain…

We already have a plain M4 Sherman IL, so what is wrong with having a late war model, the models that liberated Europe?  The US Army did the bulk of its fighting from 1943-1945, so I really don’t see your point in saying no 1944 models.  Here’s what I think of the lineup so far.

Tank 1 – M10 tank Destroyer (Most produced Allied TD, but M18 would be a better choice as M10 was obsolete by the time it was used in Africa in 1942)
Tank 2 – Sherman (Should be a late war 76mm model since we have an M4 already, not an M4A3 since it entered the war for 6 months but a M4A1 used form Tunisia on or a M4A1(76)W used from D-Day on)
Transport – Liberty Ship (Fine but we already have it so I’d like an LCM-3 Higgins boat)
SS – Narwhal Class (Fine)
DD – Somers Class (Fine)
CR – Wichita Class (Fine)
CC – USS Enterprise (Would prefer the Essex class, definitely not Saratoga or Lexington, they were out of the war by 1943 and obsolete by 1941 anyhow)
BB – Iowa Class (Fine)
Bomber – B-24 Liberator (Great choice)
Tac – TBM Avenger (Fine although we have a Pacific Tac already so I’d like to see the A-20 or better yet B-26)
Truck – Standard Army (I’m assuming the GMC or Studebaker)
Air Trans – Douglas C-47 Skytrain (Awesome)
Fighter – F6F Hellcat (Great but a P-51 would be preferred)
Artillery -  Undecided (Should go with M2A1 105mm Howitzer)
Infantry 1 – Standard European theater Uniform – M1 Rifle (Fine)
Infantry 2 – Airborne Uniform – Thompson (Fine)

My questions are, 1) will there be a US mech inf?, and 2) what will it be?  I’d like to see an M3 or M2 half track, but a Jeep would work too since we have a US half track already.

Quote
A turning point in the future role of the Tank Destroyers occurred at the Remagen Bridgehead on March 7, 1945.

and two months before the end of the war….

Quote
The M36 first served in combat in Europe in September 1944

Once again, you missed the point entirely.  The Remagen incident was the introduction of the Pershing, NOT the M36.  The Introduction of the Pershing made the M36 obsolescent and the M10 utterly obsolete.  Check your production figures, btw.  M10’s weren’t even being produced any more in the last half of the war; production switched entirely to the M36 within weeks of Normandy, and then entirely to the M26 Pershing.  By the time the US had time to react to the German ramp-up of Panther production, Ike was asking that no more 75mm Shermans or 76mm M10’s be sent and insisted, rather, that only 76mm Shermans and 90mm TD’s be sent.  M36’s were being used after the war in #'s only by allies that were willing to settle for hand-me-down obsolete equiptment.

And don’t tell me the M36 wasn’t “iconic!” the US Army Heritage Center, just down the the road from where I lived in Carlisle, PA (which is an offshoot of the Army War College) has a sort of outdoor museum filled with all the most “iconic” army weapons systems from each of their wars.  It only includes 2 AFV’s.  Care to guess which 2?  Yep, you guessed it, an M4 Sherman tank and an M36 Jackson TD (affectionately known by the troops who loved it at the time as the “Slugger.”)  None were made after WW2 (indeed, as I pointed out, the TD battalions were demobilized immediately after the war, whereas tank battalions were maintained continuously until the present) and, as I’ve repreated several times, the M36 “Slugger” was actually made in greater #'s than either Tiger variant, and in #'s 3x what the Tiger were made in.

But note that it was no longer being produced in 1944.  Production was being turned over to M36’s (which used the same hull)  Meanwhile, M4’s were being given the cannons that had previously been used in the M10.  The fact that no more M10’s were being made after 1943 makes it strictly an early-war model from the US perspective… and the fact that Ike told the army to stop sending him 75mm Shermans makes it strictly an early-war model as well.

The M36 being used by the US’s poorer allies in the postwar period hardly makes the M36 iconic for those later wars.  No, the plaque at the Army Heritage Center beside the M36 is all about its WW2 service.  If they wanted a weapon iconic for Korea, they’d have chosen an M26 or M46 (or even a Sherman “Easy 8” since they were still being used in #'s unlike M36’s)  For Vietnam, the iconic tank would be an M48 or M60.  If they wanted an AFV, anyway.  In point of fact, they chose no AFV’s for those later wars at all.  (I forget what they had for Korea, if anything, but the Vietnam display is all about helicopters and an artillery “fire base.”)

I still don’t get why you are willing to throw your otherwise iron rule about differentiation from oob out the window in order to make sure that the US gets no good tanks.  It’s almost like you have an anti-US bias or something…