Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

@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.

Actually,I think the He 117 had 2 engines per nacelle,giving it 4 engines.I love the old hunchback,but I vote for the Piaggio!

@KOOLHOVEN:

Actually,I think the He 117 had 2 engines per nacelle,giving it 4 engines.I love the old hunchback,but I vote for the Piaggio!

Nope, only two engines.

In general, the Axis didn’t have as far to fly to get to the action and they didn’t ALWAYS need to cross some body of water (unlike Britain), so they didn’t need to develop 4 engine bombers until they were starting to lose the war, and by then they didn’t have the time or economy to work through the technology.  The US and Britain were driven by the need for range and the ability to make it back to England or the Pacific Islands with functional engines - thus the redundancy of 4.  Germany made much smaller hops, although once they had control of Western Europe they did desperately need more substantial bombers.  They went with rockets instead.

As for Japan, it simply didn’t recognize the power of strategic bombing in a war of attrition; thus they were investing in naval strength and waiting for “the final decisive battle”.  It wasn’t a priority of Japan to strategic bomb the allies as nearly as it was a priority of the US.  Thus Japanese bombers were mainly all tactical - the Betty’s were torpedo bombers and medium payload at best and that was the primary bomber.

And Italy simply didn’t have the technology or military/political direction/ambition to build a heavy bomber.

I can only speak for myself, but I’d prefer the figures to denote the axis typical tried and true technology, not prototypes.

Was the Betty used as a transport plane? If so… we can use Nakajima G8N Renzan “Rita”
as heavy bomber.

No… the japanese transport plane was the Mitsubishi Ki-57…

if GERMANY gets heavy bombers, is there some rule where they can share their tech breakthrus with their allies(ITALY)?

@lnmajor:

if GERMANY gets heavy bombers, is there some rule where they can share their tech breakthrus with their allies(ITALY)?

As a house rule, yes.  As a OOB rule, I highly HIGHLY doubt it.  I also don’t think that could ever be balanced.

@kcdzim:

@KOOLHOVEN:

Actually,I think the He 117 had 2 engines per nacelle,giving it 4 engines.I love the old hunchback,but I vote for the Piaggio!

Nope, only two engines.

No, KOOLHOVEN is correct the He 177 had four engines.  Even though it does appear to have only two engines it has two engines driving each propeller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177#Engines

But this is off topic…  Sorry…

Don’t want to stray too far,but the Japanese had the massive 6 engine Fugaku that would have fit somewhere between the B29/B36.Never a chance of being built.We may see it in
1/600 from Raiden.Someone said that the Japanese egg/capsule toy makers managed a beauty in their range.

@Entek:

@kcdzim:

@KOOLHOVEN:

Actually,I think the He 117 had 2 engines per nacelle,giving it 4 engines.I love the old hunchback,but I vote for the Piaggio!

Nope, only two engines.

No, KOOLHOVEN is correct the He 177 had four engines.  Even though it does appear to have only two engines it has two engines driving each propeller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177#Engines

But this is off topic…  Sorry…

yes, ok, sorry.  Two propellers.  Still appears at this scale as a “two engine” plane.

b-29 for usa defentely(heavy bomber)
m-29 peshering(hevey tank)

2 more things. 1)im verry impressed at the time between molds!
                   2)what nation is next?

@cminke:

b-29 for usa defentely(heavy bomber)
m-29 peshering(hevey tank)

2 more things. 1)im verry impressed at the time between molds!
                   2)what nation is next?

FMG has already stated that they plan on Germany next.

Does anybody know if FMG have declared the unit models for the Germany molds yet? I’d be most interested to know what they are planning! I would like to see:

Armour 1 - Pz Kpfw IV (I think it is the obvious choice; you don’t see too many Panthers or Tigers in France 1940!)

Armour 2 - Hummel or Wespe (I hope we will get a SPG, assault gun or some kind of mech. arty - Italy got the Semovente…)

Fighter - Messerschmitt Me109 (It is the staple workhorse fighter plane.)

Tac Bomber - JU 87 Stuka (You know it’s gotta be done!)

Strat Bomber - JU 88A-5 (The mainstay of the Luftwaffe bomber fleet?)

Those are a few ideas for starters… I’m hungry for the German pieces!! Bring them on!  :-D

@Lozmoid:

Does anybody know if FMG have declared the unit models for the Germany molds yet? I’d be most interested to know what they are planning! I would like to see:

Fighter - Messerschmitt Me109 (It is the staple workhorse fighter plane.)
Tac Bomber - JU 87 Stuka (You know it’s gotta be done!)
Strat Bomber - JU 88A-5 (The mainstay of the Luftwaffe bomber fleet?)

FMG has stated they do not want to nor intend to repeat the molds of existing OOB figures.  The BF(Me) 109 and Ju88 are OOB pieces, and the Stuka will almost certainly be in AAE40.  Also, some images and discussion of German Air Pieces can be found on page 72.

@kcdzim:

FMG has stated they do not want to nor intend to repeat the molds of existing OOB figures.  The BF(Me) 109 and Ju88 are OOB pieces, and the Stuka will almost certainly be in AAE40.  Also, some images and discussion of German Air Pieces can be found on page 72.

They should make the most popular pieces. Who cares if WOTC already made them. The FMG pieces will be better.

@Brain:

@kcdzim:

FMG has stated they do not want to nor intend to repeat the molds of existing OOB figures.  The BF(Me) 109 and Ju88 are OOB pieces, and the Stuka will almost certainly be in AAE40.  Also, some images and discussion of German Air Pieces can be found on page 72.

They should make the most popular pieces. Who cares if WOTC already made them. The FMG pieces will be better.

we’ll just have to agree to disagree.  I’d rather see the FW190, an HE111 and Me 110 (or Hs 129) rather than duplicate molds, considering they all were decorated and capable planes.  And I’d rather see a typhoon than another spitfire and certainly not another A6M Zero mold.

FMG stated they don’t want to repeat molds of existing OOB figures? Seriously? For heaven’s sake, why?  :? We are paying for this project; shouldn’t we get to choose which units we want? I am buying these FMG sets to replace my Chimps pieces; not to double them. The two units will be incomparable due to detail and colour! They will not sit side by side. I tell you what - as soon as I get my Italy set, my AA50 Italy units will never again see the light of day… But that’s just me.