HBG Japan Supplement Set

Lunarwolf, and Others,

I truly understand what your saying concerning the differences between the Japanese “Oscar” and “Zeke” Fighter aircraft.

Yes, possibly all of us can discern their subtle differences,…but my main point is that when it is reduced in size to the TINY “A&A SCALE”,…IMHO it is just not dramatic enough of a diferrence to not be confused for the “Zeke”.

All of the American Fighters I listed previously had DRAMATIC differences that made it easy to diferentiate them:

Inverted gull-wings of the Corsair
Twin-boom fuselage of the Lightning
Very fat, stubby radial engine design of the Hellcat
Sleek, modern looking design of the Mustang
Older, fat-nosed design of the Warhawk

For the same above reasons(and others), I think the “Tony” by virtue of it’s being a long, slender, in-line engine shaped design that’s completely different from all other Japanese radial-engined fighter designs would be VISUALLY DISTICTIVE enough to never be confused with a “Zeke”, and thus worthy of consideration.

This along with the HISTORICAL IMPACT and NUMBERS PRODUCED of the “Tony” Fighter, and it’s being available for the ENTIRE WAR period IMHO make it an excellent choice for inclusion.

I hope you and everyone else understand my “reasonning” behind some of my choices better now. These units are soo D@%# small that we should choose Visually Distictive units that are acceptable candidates.

And BTW,…the “Tony” was originally suspected as being an ITALIAN design by the Allied Intelligence Services. That’s why it was given an “Italian” sounding “CODE” name.

When the first early encounters of the “Tony” were made at approx. 500mph closing speeds by the slightly-trained Allied pilots, these unknown new types were simply “assumed” to be the allready known German Me-109s of the Japanese Axis partners. Some racial discimination of that period probably enforced the wrong idea that these Fighters that were “Flying circles around them” could be Japanese designed and flown. They learned different very quickly.

And the “Tony” was in the Pacific War from the start all the way to the end. The Allies running across them in New Guinea against Gen. Kenney’s 5th AF of MacArthurs SouthWest Pacific Area command.

“Tall Paul”

@Tall:

And the “Tony” was in the Pacific War from the start all the way to the end. The Allies running across them in New Guinea against Gen. Kenney’s 5th AF of MacArthurs SouthWest Pacific Area command.

No, they were operationally deployed in 1943.  The design started in 40, prototype flew in 41.

kcdzim,

First off, Thank You very much for educating me on the reasons for my posts having numerous squares all over them. I’ve already changed my typing “style”(?) so that now people might actually be able to read them,…haha.

IMHO the exact introduction date of the “Tony” is NOT necessarily germain to our discussion of if it should be produced or not.

The first “Tony” was built in August '42 and I have literally dozens of books on the New Guinea campaign that are filled with the “Tony”. So from an Axis & Allies 1940-Global game viewpoint, the “Tony” would be in the picture “from the start” against the Americans.

I respect everyones’ striving to present the best factual information possible,…and I’m thankful to you in your efforts in this matter,…but I respectfully disagree with you in this case. But more importantly,…like I previously stated,…whether late '42 or early '43 shouldn’t make the slightest difference in
IF the “Tony” is produced or not.

“Tall Paul”

No, I agree, it’s not relevant to whether there should be a model, as the models represent iconic aircraft, and arguably the Hein is eligible.

And I don’t want to quibble on dates either. I did not understand how you were framing “from the start”, and honestly I don’t need to debate it. I was framing it differently as I see the Global start corresponding with late 1939, early 1940 for Global and I’ve never believed that there’s a need to say what the time period of a turn is (it’s a backdrop, not a chronological reenactment - time simply isn’t represented in any correct or measurable way).

Based on that I believe all the current OOB fighters are legit for that time, so I didn’t see the Hein as a “from the start” fighter as it didn’t show up in combat until mid war (arguably late war for Japan, as they’d been at war far longer). And yes, I agree, it’s irrelevant, as I would never bother to differentiate between early and late war fighters. To me, they’re all equal opportunity pieces as I hope for the best looking (in my opinion of course) of all varients. I would NOT want a P-51 B model. I would only want a P-51 D, for example, although I’m well aware that the P-51B was more or less early war while the D was late war.

Kcdzim,

I agree with you completely on your preferences for a “D” model, verses a “B” model P-51 Mustang. The “bubble tops” are the only way to go.

And IMHO the same could be said for the “birdcage” vs. “bubble-top” F-4U Corsairs, too.

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man, we are all SO FORTUNATE in having two companies, HBG and FMG, that are avidly introducing large numbers of highly detailed units of all types, from all countries in “A&A scale” to enrich our gaming FUN!..Wow!

Thank You Very Much Doug and Jeremy!

And I’m also thankful for this “A&A.ORG” forum, and all of it’s enlightened, passionate, and knowledgeable players that really HELP EACH OTHER out a great deal in their understanding and enjoyment of the game(s).

What a great way to start the New Year off. It looks to be a real winner, too.

I’ve read(on this forum) that FMG is expecting to complete their sets from ALL of the countries in 2012. Everyone go find your piggybanks(grin).

“Tall Paul”

it just gets so confusing on who is doing what at times, lol… but its a great resource for sure!

any news on what your going to pick coach?

@Lunarwolf:

any news on what your going to pick coach?

I guess I was asleep, pick what?

which pieces will be in your japanese supplement set?

cool one last pitch then Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa. for those who think it looks like the zeke.

the Hayabusa. http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/Ki-43Oscar/Ki-43(III)-Ko.htm

the Zero. http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/07-Maritime-Planes/A6M-Zero/A6M3-Zero.htm

the way to tell differences between the 2 fighters are the cockpit, and the wings. the Oscars Cockpit is smaller and shaped more like a Bubble than the Zeros. maybe the cockpit would be to hard to see in such a small scale
but the shape of the wings will be a lot different that you would be able to tell the difference in such a small scale. it looks triangular here is another picture to show
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/Ki-43Oscar/Ki-43(I)-Oscar.htm.
even at a small scale you still would be able to tell the difference with the shape of the wings.

the main reason i really want to see the Oscar included is that it was an iconic fighter for japan it actually was in use in 1939, so it fits the “Early war fighter” perfectly. they were also used for the kamikaze attacks toward the end of the war.

As for the late war fighters. the 2 arguments are impact vs quality
Ki-84 Hayate/Frank was considered the Japaneses best fighter through out most of the war. plus it was the 3rd most produced fighter behind only the Zero and the Oscar. the fighter was already known to be great to counter the newer allied fighters and was known to go toe to toe with Mustangs. so with the combination of being 3rd on the list of being produced AND being a beast of a fighter this would still be my first choice.

but if it was about just the quality of the fighter i would still be OK with the  Ki-100. appearance wise would be kinda compromise between those of us who like the tony and those of us that like the frank.

this is the frank
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/Ki.84Hayate/Ki.84-1koHayate.htm

the tony
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/Ki-61Hien/Ki.61-Ib-Hien.htm

and finally the Ki-100
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/Ki-100/Ki-100-I-Kou.htm

this is a paragraph from wiki to describe the abilities of the KI-100 against the then greatest fighter for japan the KI-84, and i know wiki isn’t truth but yeah

“During March and April 1945 experienced instructors from the Akeno Army Flying School flew the Ki-100 in extensive tests against the Ki-84(Frank), which was considered to be the best of the JAAF fighters then in operational service. Their conclusions were that, given pilots of equal experience, the Ki-100 would always win in combat.”

so there my last push for these fighters, an again i respect every one else’s opinion on this matter its just i love ww2 fighters and its the piece i collect the most out of all A&A pieces, and i just need to express my opinion on why i would love to see these pieces produced.

thanks for reading

I hope its not too late to chip in here…

CV: Soryu or Taiho class

BB: Ise (prerefit) or Kongo class

Tank: Type 3 Chi-Nu or Type 4 Chi-To

SPG/SPA: Type 4 Ho-Ro

Tactical Bomber: Aichi B7A

These are on my top list.  8-)

Although just a dream(for me and the Japanese) the very long range bomber could have been filled by the massive Fugaku 6 engine beastie.There is some decent art out on this thing but little else.Hard to believe at that stage of the war there would be any interest.Raiden Models considered doing one for their Luft 46 range in 1/600
but later dropped the scale altogether.I think one of the Japanese mini toy outfits did a nice one.

Lunarwolf, I really like the design for the Ki-100, and hope it is included.

Maybe both companies could split the task of fighters (Army and Navy) respectively. One could make the Ki-100 and the other could make J7W1 Shinden.

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/01-Fighters/J7W-Shinden/J7W1-Shinden.htm

That would really give the Japanese an interesting, and unique unit. Of course, the latter is just my dream and I think it qualifies more as a interceptor than a fighter, but it could still work. Still, just my preference, though I’d love for someone to make it.

I found this on HGB website:

HBG is producing it’s Seventh series of plastic Gaming pieces that can used in miniature games such as Axis & Allies, Memoir44, or just Miniature War gaming. These will be done in the same scale approx. . They will be done in 2 colors, Burnt orange to match the Out of Box color and Yellow Gold for veteran pieces.

Set will have 28 pieces.

Infantry - SNLF Marine
SP Artillery - Ho-Hi
Tank Destroyer- Ho-Ru
Armored Car-Type 87
Battleship-Kongo
Escort Carrier-Unyo
Tac-Kate Torpedo Bomber & Val Dive Bomber
Heavy Bomber-G8N
Truck-Type 94 (6 Wheel)
Mech-Ho-Ha
Light Tank-Type 92, or 97
Transport Plane-Ki-57

Can’t wait till we start talking about the British set….HMS Hood, M3 Lee tank…  :-D

Personally, I would rather each country have units that were designed and built by that country. For example, for British armor I would rather they have Crusaders, Matildas, Churchills, Comets, etc. I know that the Brits got a lot of M3 Lees and M5 Stuarts through Lend-Lease, but those are still American built tanks. I think it’s better for this game if each country has their own unique stuff. It just seems like more fun to me and you get a wider variety of sculpts.
After all, that is why FMG went to all the trouble for the Italian set. Sure, Italy got a lot of stuff from Germany during the war, but it’s cooler to have actual Italian units to play with.

“Coach”,

I applaud all of your hard work and research for your Japanese supplement set.

But, I couldn’t help but notice that you don’t have an Airborne Paratrooper unit listed in your future Japanese set. I thought that a Paratrooper was a “standard” unit in your country supplement sets. I truly hope that I don’t have to wait for a 2nd or 3rd set to have this “standard” unit. Thanks again.

“Tall Paul”

Hey Tall Paul,
I know you want dedicated Airborne troops, but I think the SNLF Marine Unit that Coach is planning could also be used as an Airborne troop for Japan. The SNLF did do some paratroop drops. In fact, in one of my A&A Miniature sets, there is a unit called “SNLF Paratrooper”. You could use Coach’s SNLF unit as Airborne and the regular OOB infantry as regular infantry. Just an idea.

KNP,

Thanks for your input. I realize that I could just use some “other” piece and paint it differently or something, and as far as that goes we could just paint everything and NEVER NEED ANY NEW UNITS,…BUT, that’s not the case here, nor is it what I(and probably others) would prefer.

In the U.S. Supplement Set, the first from HBG ,they included an Airborne Paratrooper in it. The discussion that followed it’s production lead me to believe that HBG would continue to produce Paratroopers for every country in their Supplement sets. I’m only hoping that they continue to include the Paratrooper in the FIRST SET from every nation rather than the second or third set from each nation. I think the Paratrooper unit is that important.

Don’t get me wrong,…I intend on buying several of EVERYTHING that HBG and FMG produce. I just want a Paratrooper in the FIRST SET from each nation like they have already done with the U.S. Set.

I’m not trying to influence HBG to CHANGE their unit selection for my wants,…I’m simply asking that they KEEP things as they already were. It would seem a logical selling point for their Air Transport planes IF they had something to use them(Paratroopers). Anyway,…my two cents and REQUEST.

I believe a Marine and a Paratrooper are visually very distinctive and quite different in their looks. Check out the LARGE parachutes on these below……

“Tall Paul”