Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

But you keep forgetting that the game moves forward through the years, and that (like Ike, who told the Army to stop sending him 75mm M4’s) we’ve already been given a surfeit of early Shermans oob.  To me it’s just as laughable to give the player as “upgrades” tanks that are inadequate against the Tigers FMG is rolling out.  FMG has rolled out Tigers, so he should roll out the logical American response to them, ESPECIALLY since (like Ike) we already have plenty of 75mm Shermans… more than we want, more than we could ever use…

It’s almost as though our Imperious Leader is assuming the role of McNair, the Imperious Bureaucrat, who kept standing in the way of getting Ike and Omar and the troops who wanted better tanks…

@Imperious:

But note that it was no longer being produced in 1944.

Thats like saying the Yamato was no longer being produced by 1944. The point is they made four times the number of this model and it saw action on every front. M36 saw action in the last months of the war, not unlike the Pershing which is in the same category. What is important is to have units that can work for games based on 1939-42 and not look ridiculous with post war tanks just because they were better. Rather look at the units that fought for the most part and use them. Its laughable to see a M36 in a 1940 game, its like time machine capabilities like that movie about the carrier that comes back in time to re fight with modern aircraft ( final countdown)

The M10 did not see as much action as the M18 just so you both know.  Also IL, Axis and Allies games start from 1940-42 but go on until the fighting is done, which round wise can last into the 1950’s.  I’m by no means advocating the M36 but for American army units, which as I have said fought for the most part from 43-45 (with the bulk of that in 44) mid to late war units are better suited then early war types such as the M10 and M4.  The M10 was obsolete by Kassarine Pass.  And yes it was produced in the greatest numbers, but a lot of that was for lend-lease (btw the nickname of “Wolverine” wasn’t even used by American but by the British troops who used them).  The same can be said for the M4 Sherman.  Both units are early-war types, obsolete by the end of Operation Torch, and both were mass-produced for lend-lease purposes.  The M4 and M10 weren’t used for D-Day or the European Theatre (except the early days in Sicily and Italy).  Why do you want American units that didn’t do the bulk of America’s fighting?

@dadler12:

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, Here!

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)

The M18 is definitely a better choice than the M10, anyway.  Unlike the M10, it has some advantages over the 76mm Sherman, since it was faster, giving it a secondary use as a light/recon AFV that the M10 doesn’t have.  The M10 was basically a 76mm Sherman sans roof!  (and with a goofy-looking turret to boot!)  But I still prefer the good ole M36 “Slugger,” which “stood in the gap” while the Army brought the Pershing into play and completely replaced the M10 at the same time that the 76mm Sherman was completely replacing the 75mm Sherman.

The M10 did not see as much action as the M18 just so you both know.  Also IL, Axis and Allies games start from 1940-42 but go on until the fighting is done, which round wise can last into the 1950’s.  I’m by no means advocating the M36 but for American army units, which as I have said fought for the most part from 43-45 (with the bulk of that in 44) mid to late war units are better suited then early war types such as the M10 and M4.  The M10 was obsolete by Kassarine Pass.  And yes it was produced in the greatest numbers, but a lot of that was for lend-lease (btw the nickname of “Wolverine” wasn’t even used by American but by the British troops who used them).  The same can be said for the M4 Sherman.  Both units are early-war types, obsolete by the end of Operation Torch, and both were mass-produced for lend-lease purposes.  The M4 and M10 weren’t used for D-Day or the European Theatre (except the early days in Sicily and Italy).  Why do you want American units that didn’t do the bulk of America’s fighting?

Exactly!  And even many of those early-M4’s and M10’s were then being converted by the British after they got them by having 17-pdr’s installed, turning them into “Fireflies” and “Archers.”  By the end of the war, most British tanks were, in fact, fireflies, just as the Americans had converted over to 76mm Shermans.

I’m also not so sure about FMG’s small-ship picks.  Both the Narwhal and Somers classes were small, experimental classes.  If we’re going by the “most-used” criteria, both fall far short.  Here’s a list of the DD & SS classes arranged from most to least produced:

US DD classes #’s:

Fletcher: 175
Gearing & Sumner (identical in appearance): 156
Gleaves: 62
Benson: 30
Mahan: 18
Sims: 12
Benham: 10
Bagley: 8
Porter: 8
Farragut: 8
Somers: 5
Gridley: 4

US SS Classes #’s:

Balao: 128
Gato: 77
Tambor: 12
Sargo: 10
Porpise: 10
Salmon: 6
Barracuda: 3
Narwhal: 2
Cachalot: 2

Since oob has the Gato and Fletcher classes nailed down, the Balao and Sumner classes are the logical alternative.  Subs might be hard to tell apart on this scale anyway… but with DD’s the new twin turrets of the Sumner make it distinctive from oob… perfect!  Especially since FMG makes his turrets much more clear on the models than the rather indistinct oob ships.

@dadler12:

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)

Did you mean the B-26 or the A-26?  (they’re often confused…)

I meant the Douglas A-20 which is an early-mid war twin engine bomber and the B-26 Marauder a mid-late war twin engine bomber.  I prefer the B-26.

Well, the A-20 was a smallish twin engine, putting it more-or-less in the same range as the Mosquito… (hence the “A” for attack desination, rather than “B” for bomber…)  and it was pretty fast, faster than most medium bombers, so it might fit the tac bomber profile OK… though it was kind of an early-war phenomenon… But the B-26 was a bigger and slower medium bomber.  The A-26 was the replacement for the A-20 and even though it was big enough to be in the medium bomber range it was actually faster than the A-20… almost Mosquito fast.  So maybe the A-26 would make a good tac bomber, even if it is rather large for the role…

The B-26, though… it opens the whole medium bomber can of worms…  Since the axis powers only have medium bombers, the B-26 (and B-25, for that matter) seems like more of a bomber than a tac bomber to me, unless we’re ready to add another air-unit category and separate “medium bombers” from “heavy bombers”… something I’ve contemplated but never tried, given that I’ve never had the pieces to do it before.

While I think it would be cool to have medium bomber pieces for the US, that creates a problem for the Axis.  FMG has already shown us the German and Italian bomber pieces and they are really medium size.  We don’t really have a heavy bomber for the Axis.  At least not yet.  Maybe they could come out with a heavy bomber piece in some future set, or one of coachofmany’s supplement sets.  I thought the Fw200 Kondor would have made a great bomber piece for Germany and could be used as a heavy bomber since it was a big, 4-engined, long-range bomber.  Although, I don’t think it carried a large enough bomb load to be considered “heavy”, but we could use a little creative license on that.

I love the FW-200 Condor - quite possibly one of the most beautiful airplanes ever made.

my list

Tank 1 – M18 Hellcat OR Jackson. (they both look really similar, so the piece could represent both)
Tank 2 – M26 Pershing (would be the heavy tank for the US. OOB Sherman would represent the light tank for the US.)
Transport – Liberty Ship
SS – Narwhal Class
DD – Gleaves-class OR Sumner class
CA – New Orleans class OR the Boston class
CV – USS Lexington class or Hornet class
BB – Pennsylvania Class(really want this one) 2nd would be the North Carolina Class
Bomber – B-24 Liberator
Tac – TBM Avenger
Truck – Standard Army
Air Trans – Douglas C-47
Fighter – P51 Mustang (PLEASE)
Artillery - M101 105 MM  howitzer
Infantry 1 – Standard European theater Uniform – M1 Rifle
Infantry 2 – Airborne Uniform – Thompson

What the heck is a “Boston class?”

I really don’t understand why people want the Pershing.  I’m all for tech units but not in the normal US set.  The Pershing, no matter who caused it Larsen, was not deployed in WW2 but for a matter of months.  It is silly to put in a heavy tank because the US did not use heavy tanks, as you have pointed out in other posts.  I agree with you on some things, like the 76mm Sherman, but not the Pershing.  I would be very disappointed if the Pershing was included in the US set.  FMG has said he is doing a tech piece set, Coachofmany is doing supplement sets as well, ask for the Pershing in those sets.  The US set should be a Sherman and a Tank Destroyer, period.  We can argue about models, but the US had a tank destroyer doctrine not a heavy tank doctrine and for better or worse that is how they fought WW2.

its the Baltimore class, i made a mistake i was looking at the wrong name. and yeah i agree with dadler i guess the Pershing can just be a tech unit for later, BUT i would still love to see the m18, cause for me when i was young that was my first
ww2 US toy tank. so when i think US tank i usually think about the m18 first

I think the 2 US Armor pieces should be the M3 Stuart light tank and a tank destroyer/SP.  Then again, I wanted a Panzer III and Tiger I for the Germans.  I think all the nations should have at least 1 light tank in their inventory.

From a game perspective, I’d rather see a “heavy” tank “upgrade” than a “light” tank “downgrade,” since the light tank begins to intrude on Mech unit capabilities.  In game terms the only situation where it would have made more sense to reverse this is in the case of the Germans, since they have a unit that oob was arguably more of a “heavy” unit.

I also understand that AA fans like to see units that are “iconic” and that there can be some real tension between what makes sense game-wise and what fits best historically.  Still, though, I’d rather see those who are making pieces that are “upgrades” to oob making units that are also “upgrades” to the “standard” units oob given the choice.  That’s why I’m also hoping to see the BB units from FMG be representatives of the best each nation had to offer, so that it gives us a true “super-BB” option.  Of course, if we can have both, that changes everything…  Thus, if FMG was making 2 BB’s for the US and Japan, that whole, long multipage argument between me and Imperious would have been unnecessary…

If you don’t check in here at least every other day you can really miss some good stuff!
Nice tread from DrLarsen/IL.Been working too much(plus trying to get a drugy tenant out) and missed some great entertainment.I love the idea of the Pershing however
futuristic it seems.But the Atlanta/Sumers/Gearing rocks! I know you guys are aware that the Shinano was laid down as a Yamato(as well as the # 111) and that the B64 was never considered to be a BC but just the next step in the evolution of the Jap. heavy cruiser(as the US did the Alaskas).Great job on the discussion of the Jap./US releases guys.

lol so true