@general-6-stars I have a physical map that I have made. It’s mostly rules i am trying to develop. Thanks for showing me your map.
Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread
-
FMG,
Read the Wikipedia article about the P.108 - it mentions that most were converted to use as air transports, and even the Luftwaffe used them as such.
-
FMG,
Read the Wikipedia article about the P.108 - it mentions that most were converted to use as air transports, and even the Luftwaffe used them as such.
Thank you for your help. My concern is that the P.108 is for engine and bigger than the B.20. We can’t have an air transport that is bigger than the bomber!
Maybe we can keep the B.20 as the Bomber/transport and build the P.180? What do you think?
Can anyone find me a technical drawing of this aircraft?
-
The italian transport is fine. As for the italian heavy bomber… you cant go wrong with the Savoia Marchetti SM 79, it was the most used and recognized easily. I found drawings of the two, the SM 79 and the piaggio p-108.
-
Yeah, My vote is to keep the B.20 as the transport as well.
Your call on the heavy bomber - I prefer the P.108 for the 4 engine config.
-
THANK YOU!!!
Lets hear what others think. I like the four engine bomber… it will be easily recognizable on the board.
-
THANK YOU!!!
Lets hear what others think. I like the four engine bomber… it will be easily recognizable on the board.
For what it’s worth, I prefer the SM79, as the shape and tri rotor config is more uniquely Italian and it was their primary bomber. It’s not technically a heavy bomber, but the P.108 never got out of it’s teething period and the Italians were out of the war before it could really be used. And considering the P.108 was inferior to a B17 is pretty much every way, it hardly could be called a heavy bomber.
If each power nation ends up with a 4 engine bomber I don’t see how it’s all that unique other than nation color. Not to mention that the Italians will probably NEVER get “heavy bomber” tech, so why make a figure indicative of a technology they didn’t come close to acquiring in the war, or in a game?
-
Which models were used to design the italian trucks and halftracks? Really looking forward to see those beauties! :-D
-
Which models were used to design the italian trucks and halftracks? Really looking forward to see those beauties! :-D
These are almost done! Should have images next week! …and the Italian sub I am told.
I like the SM79 also… it has a very unique look just like the 202 Fogalore Fighter
-
My vote goes to the SM79 as heavy bomber
-
I also cast my vote for the SM 79 for the Italian bomber. I thought that one was decided on when FMG first started this project. I was really looking forward to seeing the SM 79 pieces.
The transport plane looks really cool. That’s one I hadn’t seen before.
-
-
I would go with the SM79 on account of its uniqueness. Unless of course you were already planning on having all nations with 4 engine heavy bombers. If that was to be the case then go with the four engine sculpt.
P.S. Sorry about the sculpt mishap. Its nice to know that FMG cares enough about their products that they would consider resculpting instead of simply shipping out USA cruisers in orange for example.
-
The japanese bomber will be the Betty so… not all nations have 4 engine bombers, no problem with the SM 79.
-
Having all the Nations heavy bombers be 4 engine would eliminate some confusion when they are scattered around the board.
-
The japanese bomber will be the Betty so… not all nations have 4 engine bombers, no problem with the SM 79.
Good point. Go with the 3 engine SM79.
-
SM 79 here as well! I converted from the P.108 after examining the SM 79.
-
@Danger:
Having all the Nations heavy bombers be 4 engine would eliminate some confusion when they are scattered around the board.
Sure. But in what game have you ever seen Italy field heavy bombers? Italy doesn’t have the economy to get tech unless the game is pretty much over. besides, the SM 79 would NEVER be confused with another plane and when russia and italy are so close in color, two 4 engine bombers would actually be more confusing, not less. Give Italy their wacky looking planes! ;)
-
We are going to make the SM 79! Doing Italy first has really made the start of this project difficult. As you can imagine there are not as many models of WW2 Italian tanks/trucks/planes.
-
2 engines bomber is more accurate for Axis.
4 engines for UK and US.I have B24 on my game board……I love that one!!!
-
A long-range heavy bomber doesn’t necessarily have to have 4 engines. During the later part of the war, the Germans developed the Heinkel He 177 which was considered to be a long-range heavy bomber and it only had 2 engines. However, I don’t think it actually went past the prototype stage because of too heavy needs for other types of aircraft at that stage in the war. If Germany had been more successful in WW2, maybe they would have ended up producing and employing the He 177, like to hit the Soviet production facilities east of the Urals for instance.
Suggested Topics
