FMG - JAPAN UNITS

@reloader-1:

I don’t want ANY overlap with ingame OOB pieces…

US will now have 3 different fighter sculpts (P-38 & F6F OOB/ P-51 or F4U - FMG) and Japan will have ONE sculpt? (the Zero… bla bla bla)

No overlap!

FMG has never confirmed that their sculpt will be the A6M and have already expressed the desire to have completely distinct models from those of the game.  Calm yourself.

And that’s why it should be an N1K anyway, because the Oscar is not nearly distinct enough from the A6M (confused by pilots in the air, so even worse when reduced to game size). :wink:

Besides, eventually there WILL be overlap.  Germany only had one class of Aircraft Carrier.  And the closest Russia ever came to an aircraft carrier in WW2 was when they captured the Graf Zeppelin and later used as a gunnery target.

I know that FMG has stated that - I just wanted to reinforce the thought…

If anyone can get access to a copy of Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1809-1945 by Dieter Jung, Peter Mickel, and Hansgeorg Jentschura, there is an accurate line drawing of the profile of the Standard Merchant variant of which I am thinking. I, however, don’t have a copy of the book at the moment (hence my use of a ship silhouette from a subsim PC game).

EDIT - Never mind; after checking the said book, it appears that I was mistaken, as I cannot find the particular profile of which I was thinking. However, there are plenty of other interesting Japanese merchants from which to choose, including other Standard Merchants. I’ll post some links for consideration later.

I’ll also note that if FMG chooses not to produce another Zeke, my second choice for a Japanese fighter would be the NIK-1 Shiden-Kai “George.”

EDIT 2 - Here’s an interesting link to some detailed WWII-era Japanese transports, including both generic and standard merchants; it would be interesting to hear the opinion of FMG and some community members on some of these:

http://ww6.enjoy.ne.jp/~iwashige/modellist.htm

I don’t think the Shinano class is a good carrier for Japan. Sure it was big, but it also was designed as an aux carrier. It was never meant for fleet action. Plus the BB has to be a Yamato, so we’d already have the Yamato hull for the BB. I think the Akagi would be a much better choice for the CV than the Shinano. The Akagi is a very beautiful carrier.

@Tralis:

I don’t think the Shinano class is a good carrier for Japan. Sure it was big, but it also was designed as an aux carrier. It was never meant for fleet action. Plus the BB has to be a Yamato, so we’d already have the Yamato hull for the BB. I think the Akagi would be a much better choice for the CV than the Shinano. The Akagi is a very beautiful carrier.

The Shinano is the OOB mold.  I don’t think we need to worry about FMG molding another one.

More the reason to avoid repeating it.

Shinano was a one off ship converted from a BB. They made one and it got sunk before it saw combat and WOTC made a iconic piece out of it?

Nice move. All the reason to make real improvements with proper sculpts representing the famous units that saw action in many battles rather than ‘experimental’ types

@Imperious:

Japanese Artillery: Model 92?
Japanese Mechanized Infantry: ?
Japanese Tank:Type 97 Chi-Ha
Japanese Fighter: A6M2 “Zero”
Japanese Tactical Bomber: Kate
Japanese Strategic Bomber: Mitsubishi Ki-67 or Yokosuka P1Y
Japanese Battleship: Kongo class
Japanese Cruiser: Mogami-class Heavy Cruiser
Japanese Destroyer: Haguro class
Japanese Carrier: Shokaku-class Aircraft Carrier or Soryu class
Japanese Submarine: ?
Japanese Transport: ?

Yes, this is much better, pieces more readily used.

@coachofmany:

Japanese Submarine: ?
Japanese Transport: ?

Use the I-19 class for subs and the Kinau Maru class for transports

I would go with the Kongo for BB, Shokaku or Kaga for the CV and Val for the Tac bomber.
The Kongo class and Shokaku or Kaga were the types that were more active during the parts of the war when Japan was still competing in naval battles (Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Santa Cruz, etc.) The Yamato and Musashi were not really around until late and were sunk almost immediately.  Plus the kongo superstructure looks a lot cooler and unique for Japan.

The Val to me is a better choice than the Kate - it is more distinct from the Zero - so players can tell it more easily apart with its wings and fixed landing gear, etc.

@The:

I would go with the Kongo for BB, Shokaku or Kaga for the CV and Val for the Tac bomber.
The Kongo class and Shokaku or Kaga were the types that were more active during the parts of the war when Japan was still competing in naval battles (Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Santa Cruz, etc.) The Yamato and Musashi were not really around until late and were sunk almost immediately.  Plus the kongo superstructure looks a lot cooler and unique for Japan.

The Val to me is a better choice than the Kate - it is more distinct from the Zero - so players can tell it more easily apart with its wings and fixed landing gear, etc.

Again, FMG has already posted that they were trying NOT to repeat molds with the existing out-of-box molds.  The Val is already the AAP1940 tactical bomber: it should not be repeated.  Nor should they repeat the A6M Zero.

If your suggestion is on the following list, suggest something else:
@reloader-1:

Current OOB units: (per Krieghund)

Japanese Artillery: Model 92
Japanese Mechanized Infantry: SdKfz 251 (German)
Japanese Tank: Type 95 Kyugo
Japanese Fighter: A6M2 “Zero”
Japanese Tactical Bomber: D3A1 “Val”
Japanese Strategic Bomber: 24J “Betty”
Japanese Battleship: Yamato class
Japanese Cruiser: Takao class
Japanese Destroyer: Fubuki class
Japanese Carrier: Shinano class
Japanese Submarine: I class  (This is probably a B-1 class Sub)
Japanese Transport: Hakusan Maru class

–------------------

Quick note - The Haguro was a Nachi class CA, not the nameship of a DD class. Just thought I’d point that out. :-)

As well, I definitely agree that the Shinano is not the best choice for a carrier mold, due to the OOB model and due to her relative obscurity in comparison to other IJN carriers. I would still choose the Shokaku class as being well-known amongst WWII PTO enthusiasts and military historians, as well as being typical of modern IJN carrier production (at this scale, she is somewhat representative of the Soryu, and the Unryu class, the latter of which was intended for mass production, with 17 planned, 6 launched, and 3 completed).

@ Deaths Head 420 - I assume you are referencing the I-19 and Kinai Maru due to their inclusion in Axis & Allies WaS. I-19 was a B1 class submarine, which was actually my own choice (I’d be willing to settle for a different B class variant though). The Kinai Maru is a possibility for a transport, although I’d still prefer a mass-produced Standard Merchant, although due to my inability to confirm the existance of the version in the profile I posted earlier, I’d now choose a Type 2A:

Type 2A Standard Merchant:

BTW - Off topic, but in response to an earlier poster discussing Soviet carriers, the Soviets did draft plans for two serious CV designs, and had several others that never left the drawing board (none of any design were actually laid down though). These two serious designs were Project 71 (a light carrier, intended to begin production earlier in the war) and Project 72 (a fleet carrier, intended to begin production later in the war). If an appropriate thread is opened by FMG, I’ll post some line drawings (profile and overhead).

So what is the carrier used in Revised for the Soviets?

Russian carrier design:

Kostromitinov 40800t - 51200t 32 knots
16 - 5.9in (8x2)
106 aircraft

Project 72 30755t - 37390t 30 knots
16 - 5.1 (8x2)
62 - 70 Aircraft

Project 71 13150t 35 knots
8 - 4in (8x1)
30 Aircraft

Komsomolets (1927) 12000t
8 - 4in (4x2)
16 aircraft

@dinosaur:

So what is the carrier used in Revised for the Soviets?

It’s a British Illustrious class, I believe.

The most appropriate carrier for Russia would be a project 71, as that was a 1940ish design, partially influenced by tours of the Graf Zeppelin prior to German/Russian hostilites.  Although, considering Russia captured the Graf Zeppelin, I could see that as a perfectly reasonable mold as well.  the project 72 was proposed in 1945, I thought.

The Nakajima B5N2 ought to be the dive bomber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_B5N

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b46R07QHWi4&feature=related

It was the most advanced and prolific.

As for the Zero, the ones WOTC are pretty poor.  I’d like to see a super detailed Zero.  Same goes for the Yamato, though maybe a more common BB would be better.  The WOTC Yamatos already look like Super Star Destroyers.

One problem with making a mold “too detailed” is it starts looking almost cartoonish - plastic is a hard material to work with.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

The Nakajima B5N2 ought to be the dive bomber

definently

@Upside-down_Turtle:

The Nakajima B5N2 ought to be the dive bomber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_B5N

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b46R07QHWi4&feature=related

It was the most advanced and prolific.

As for the Zero, the ones WOTC are pretty poor.  I’d like to see a super detailed Zero.  Same goes for the Yamato, though maybe a more common BB would be better.  The WOTC Yamatos already look like Super Star Destroyers.

I second this. Not sure what other fighter would be a good choice besides the zero but, I would love a nice looking zero if no other suitable choice could be made.

@reloader-1:

One problem with making a mold “too detailed” is it starts looking almost cartoonish - plastic is a hard material to work with.

Agreed.  The scale required and the process of molding means that with more detail you’ll see more mold errors.  I can’t imagine what could be added to the planes at that scale.  Rivets and panels would look ridiculous.  Even outlines for flaps and landing gear would probably look off.  The only things I could see that could MAYBE be reasonably added would be the propellor hub and engine cowling.  Even then, it would be hard to pull off at this scale.

And I still say, we already have one naval dive bomber and at this scale all japanese dive/torpedo bombers look very similar (Val just has external gear) so I’d rather have a ground attack plane (like the Ki-45 “Nick”) rather than a torpedo bomber (Kate’s not a dive bomber).

@kcdzim:

@reloader-1:

One problem with making a mold “too detailed” is it starts looking almost cartoonish - plastic is a hard material to work with.

Agreed.  The scale required and the process of molding means that with more detail you’ll see more mold errors.  I can’t imagine what could be added to the planes at that scale.  Rivets and panels would look ridiculous.  Even outlines for flaps and landing gear would probably look off.  The only things I could see that could MAYBE be reasonably added would be the propellor hub and engine cowling.  Even then, it would be hard to pull off at this scale.

And I still say, we already have one naval dive bomber and at this scale all japanese dive/torpedo bombers look very similar (Val just has external gear) so I’d rather have a ground attack plane (like the Ki-45 “Nick”) rather than a torpedo bomber (Kate’s not a dive bomber).

I don’t expect rivets and panels. I just want a zero with a straight tail and complete wings without mold errors like chunks missing. Thats all.