@Adam514
And the rules list the facilities under the “unit profiles” heading and mentions that they are placed in the “Mobilize New Units phase”.
But otherwise I could not find it referencing them as “units”. So thanks for the clarification
Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread
-
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!
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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. -
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? -
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
-
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.
-
German bomber will be Heinkel 111, Fighter could be FW-190.
The policy as stated was to not replicate existing OOB units… why? Because by making new molds you effectively double the units.
For example: it would be possible to make a Battle of Britain game with no fewer than 6 national plane sculpts using both inventories of pieces.
So all these units have to be different. Heinkel 111 was a primary bomber and the best looking one at that.
-
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:
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.
-
I agree with Lozmoid. I don’t understand why ALL OOB pieces HAVE to be replaced. In some cases I can understand, like if you want to get P-51 Mustangs instead of P-38 Lightnings, or FW 190s instead of Me 109s. I would LOVE to see Panzer III and Tiger I for German tanks. Also, if WOTC is going to include the Stuka, it would be great if FMG made the Me 110 for a Tac Bomber.
However, there are some other pieces I would really rather NOT change. Like the Bismarck class battleships for Germany. The Germans really didn’t have another battleship class that could compare to the Bismarck class. The Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were good ships, but they were actually battlecruisers and not true battleships. The Graf Spee was a Deutshland (excuse my spelling) class Pocket Battleship and much smaller than the Bismarck class. It had good armament and speed but lacked the armor protection of a true battleship so if you wanted to be realistic in the game, that would eliminate the “two hit” rule for German battleships. The Bismarck class was the best that Germany had to offer in the way of battleships and that is what we should have.
The same goes for the Yamato Class battleships for Japan. They were the biggest and most powerful battleships built by Japan so that is what we should have in our fleets. I remember Imperious Leader mentioned wanting to see the Kongo class (which was actually a battlecruiser, not a battleship). The Kongo class were very much outclassed by US battleships, even the older models. Why would you want an inferior class of ship to represent your battleships for Japan? Also, the Iowa class should remain the US Battleship for the same reason, they were the best and most powerful battleships put out by the US Navy.
Britain, on the other hand, should have a different battleship. The Royal Oak I think was a poor choice. I would suggest the King George V class for the same reason that I like the Iowa class for US, they were the best and most modern battleships built by Britain.
Anyway, that’s just my 2 cents worth.
-
dumb question#27. does OOB stand for “out of the box”?
-
does OOB stand for “out of the box”?
yes
Suggested Topics
