Quote from Wikipedia, re side skirts on StuG’s:
From May 1943, side hull skirts (schurzen) were fitted to G models for added armor protection particularly against anti-tank rifles. Side skirts were retro-fitted to some Ausf. F/8 models, as they were be fitted to all front line StuGs and other tanks by June 1943 in preparation for the battle of Kursk. Mountings for side skirts proved inadequate, many were lost in the field. From March 1944, improved mounting was introduced, as a result side skirts are seen more often with late model Ausf G
So it seems that they were fitted at the factory on nearly all of he late-war (mid '43 on) models and retrofitted on many others, but poor mountings also caused many to be lost in the field, which may account for the fact that many in-action pictures of even late models lack them… with the final versions having improved mountings causing the late-late versions to be seen pretty regularly with them.
thats why i like the pz.iv cuz it looks cool w/ the side skierts
Hey coach and Dr Larsen,
Thanks for the link, quotes and all the info. Sometimes it amazes me how much I am into WW 2 and especially German armor, yet there are still things that I have missed in my studies and browsing.
Hey coach and Dr Larsen,
Thanks for the link, quotes and all the info.
Hey, no prob, man; it’s great to be able to share this stuff with interested people!
Sometimes it amazes me how much I am into WW 2 and especially German armor, yet there are still things that I have missed in my studies and browsing.
You said it! I know I’m learning new stuff all the time. It was only, oh, about a month ago that I learned that the StuG III was the most produced German AFV of the war, and I was like “Huh…! That can’t be!” and yet sure enough, it was! …And when I learned more about how the German war industries worked (or in some cases, didn’t work) it made perfect sense… Altogether, the numbers on the four most produced German AFV’s were:
1. StuG III: 9,408 (+1,211 very similar StuH 42)
2. PzKpfw IV: 8,800 (+ 3-4,000 StuG IV, Panzerjager IV & other related variants)
3. Panther: 6,000 (+ 4-500 JagdPanthers and other variants)
4. PzKpfw III: 5,774 (not including the StuG/StuH variants)
Compare this with the more than 57,000 T-34’s made by the Soviets and then just slightly fewer Shermans made by the US and it starts to become clear why the Germans lost the war! (And note that these numbers do not include the TD and SP artillery variants of the T-34 and Sherman, of which somewhat more than 10,000 of each were made…)
Yeah, one of the reasons the Allies were able to defeat Germany was by sheer volume. The Sherman tank was a really decent tank, but it really couldn’t compare to the Panthers and Tigers of the Germans. I saw an interview with a guy that drove Sherman tanks in the war and he said that you could send up 4 Shermans against a Panther and while you would take the Panther out, you end up losing 3 of your 4 Shermans. What was sad is that the guys that were training for tank duty here in the States were told by the Army that they were getting the best tanks out there and the Germans had nothing to compare with them. Then they get over to Europe and what a nasty surprise.
Yeah, one of the reasons the Allies were able to defeat Germany was by sheer volume. The Sherman tank was a really decent tank, but it really couldn’t compare to the Panthers and Tigers of the Germans. I saw an interview with a guy that drove Sherman tanks in the war and he said that you could send up 4 Shermans against a Panther and while you would take the Panther out, you end up losing 3 of your 4 Shermans. What was sad is that the guys that were training for tank duty here in the States were told by the Army that they were getting the best tanks out there and the Germans had nothing to compare with them. Then they get over to Europe and what a nasty surprise.
I would be interested to find out when he was told that, though. The “best ___anything out there” is usually a moving target. In 1941, given the information that the trainer had at the time, it might have been at least arguably true. Compared to Panzer III’s and early-model Panzer IV’s, the Sherman was fine. Late model Shermans were OK against even late-model Panzer IV’s and in Korea, Shermans did just fine against T-34/85’s. (In fact, late in the Korean war, they even started pulling out M26’s and sending in more Shermans, because the Shermans were doing just fine and the M26’s were having mechanical/ mobility issues in the Korean environment…)
I’ve also read an interview with a Soviet general who was young commander back then of (was it a company? I’m try to remember…) of Shermans for the Red Army, and he actually defended the Sherman quite vociferously and said he and his men preferred them over T-34’s for a variety of reasons. I remember early on in his interview he said that many people would tell him the Sherman was a bad tank, and he would say “Compared to what?!” It’s always a relative thing.
Of course a Sherman would struggle against a Panther, though, because even though the Panther was ostensibly a “medium” tank, it was 10 tons heavier! It’s like pitting a medium-weight boxer against a heavy-weight boxer and then asking what was wrong with the poor medium-weight guy that he got beat up so bad! Even a sloppy engineer can do a lot with 10 more tons of armor, and the Germans’ fault was anything but under-engineering their weapon systems! I think one of the key mistakes that American planners made was that they assumed that the Panther was going to be used, like the Tiger, in limited #'s. Albert Speer, however, managed to streamline Panther production to where they started producing them in numbers, and the Panther was just right in that “sweet spot” where they were enough bigger than the Sherman and T-34 as to be tough for them to kill (without at least a main armament upgrade) and yet they really gave up nothing in terms of speed and maneuverability. Their only downside was in reliability…
Coach, will your tanks have movable turrets? (btw, I prefer non-movable turrets, like the P40 and E40 games)
To maximize the detail, they must have separate turrets, but I do not like the loose pieces. When I used to play micro armour, I always glued my turrets.
If I decide to go to high detail, they have to be cast in multiple pieces, but I am having the factory glue them together.
I’m not really fond of too much detail - personally, the level of detail in OOB tanks is perfect for me.
Thoughts on this, anyone else?
I want deatail, as long as they come in one piece! If the factory glues them together thay will probably do a pretty good job. I’m just ready for some new pieces!!
While on one hand I’m OK with oob level of detail, I want my pieces to look like they “belong” together. For me, then, having a similar level of detail with FMG pieces is important in order for the HBG-FMG combined line-up have the right “coherence” to it. I don’t mind the two-piece turrets if they fit snug and aren’t falling off all the time, but on the other hand I’m not necessarily into paying a whole lot extra for a revolving turret, if it’s more costly to make it that way.
WOTC detail is fine by me, all I’m looking for is a range of pieces in A&A scale so that those of us who want to can buy a ton of good looking pieces to play A&A with.
Exactly my opinion. I just want more “WOTC” pieces
im on the same page as reloader
Having such great detail at such a small scale is pretty cool, but moveable turrets on such small tanks might be going too far. When Jeremy announced that their new tank turrets would be moveable, I first thought that was really fantastic. Especially since it seemed to be such a big deal with the Autoblinda armored car and the original sculp photo with the turret pointing backward. However, I am wondering if such small pieces should have moving parts like that. It kind of seems like something extra to break.
Superfine detail on these isn’t totally necessary. After all, they are just game pieces. I think the variety of units will be more important.
The first mold will have a sculpt of these pieces. The numbers have not been worked out. These will be done in (4) color for Axis Minors plus Black, Italian brown, and FMG Grey, so a total of 7 different color sets. (please remeber, this is a minor set, but I will be offering them in German & Italian colors. I will do a supplement German set with other pieces like Me-262, Jagdpanther, Arado-234 Bomber, 21 cm heavy Artillery, Flak tower, etc
Infantry w/ Field cap and Rifle
Infantry w/ M36 Helmet and Panzerfaust
232 (6 wheel) Armored Car
105mm Artillery
38t Light Tank
PzIIIN Med. tank
PzIVH Med Tank w/ side skirts (late War or heavier than PZ III)
StugIIIG (No side skirts)
Opel Maultier truck w/ Halftracks
Coach, great list - could you maybe change the 38t for a Panzer II? I want to use this set for a possible Spanish Civil War expansion and that would fit perfectly, plus it would work for any 1939 scenarios or Imperious Leaders build x(2-5) light tanks -> allows you to then build x(5-10) med tanks -> allows you to then build heavy tanks/super tanks.
We have a Panther OOB, the Panzer III and IV could classify as med tanks (or, for the IV, a heavy tank).
38 my is a light tank and used by the minors more than a panzer II .
I will do a panzer II in the next set.
Looks like a really cool set to me. Have you decided how many of each unit will be in each set? How about cost?
The Axis minors/German supplement set will be the first one you do, right? Will the US Marines set follow that one? What ideas do you have for further sets?
Do you have any plans for expanding on naval units for any countries? I have a few ideas if you are interested in doing that:
PT / Torpedo boats – cheap to build, perhaps cost 3 or 4, attack 1 or 2, defend 1 or 0.
Escort Carriers – cheaper than full carriers and can only hold 1 fighter or tac. Same att/def as carriers but cost 10-12.
Pocket Battleships – something in between battleships and cruisers. Perhaps attack at 4 but only defend at 2 since those ships were historically lighter armored. Cost 15 or 16.
That’s all I can think of right now. Just a few ideas.
I am still going back and forth on numbers, I have to wait for final costs from the factory before I can pin down a price.
Marines will be my next set followed by the US.
I have to stay with FMG to supplement his sets, but the plan is to sneak in some minor sets in between his.
I do plan on doing some ship variations starting with the US.
I need to see what FMG has finalized on their choices before I decide but a escort carrier is a must to do.
