Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

We already have a plain M4 Sherman IL, so what is wrong with having a late war model, the models that liberated Europe?  The US Army did the bulk of its fighting from 1943-1945, so I really don’t see your point in saying no 1944 models.  Here’s what I think of the lineup so far.

Tank 1 – M10 tank Destroyer (Most produced Allied TD, but M18 would be a better choice as M10 was obsolete by the time it was used in Africa in 1942)
Tank 2 – Sherman (Should be a late war 76mm model since we have an M4 already, not an M4A3 since it entered the war for 6 months but a M4A1 used form Tunisia on or a M4A1(76)W used from D-Day on)
Transport – Liberty Ship (Fine but we already have it so I’d like an LCM-3 Higgins boat)
SS – Narwhal Class (Fine)
DD – Somers Class (Fine)
CR – Wichita Class (Fine)
CC – USS Enterprise (Would prefer the Essex class, definitely not Saratoga or Lexington, they were out of the war by 1943 and obsolete by 1941 anyhow)
BB – Iowa Class (Fine)
Bomber – B-24 Liberator (Great choice)
Tac – TBM Avenger (Fine although we have a Pacific Tac already so I’d like to see the A-20 or better yet B-26)
Truck – Standard Army (I’m assuming the GMC or Studebaker)
Air Trans – Douglas C-47 Skytrain (Awesome)
Fighter – F6F Hellcat (Great but a P-51 would be preferred)
Artillery -  Undecided (Should go with M2A1 105mm Howitzer)
Infantry 1 – Standard European theater Uniform – M1 Rifle (Fine)
Infantry 2 – Airborne Uniform – Thompson (Fine)

My questions are, 1) will there be a US mech inf?, and 2) what will it be?  I’d like to see an M3 or M2 half track, but a Jeep would work too since we have a US half track already.

Quote
A turning point in the future role of the Tank Destroyers occurred at the Remagen Bridgehead on March 7, 1945.

and two months before the end of the war….

Quote
The M36 first served in combat in Europe in September 1944

Once again, you missed the point entirely.  The Remagen incident was the introduction of the Pershing, NOT the M36.  The Introduction of the Pershing made the M36 obsolescent and the M10 utterly obsolete.  Check your production figures, btw.  M10’s weren’t even being produced any more in the last half of the war; production switched entirely to the M36 within weeks of Normandy, and then entirely to the M26 Pershing.  By the time the US had time to react to the German ramp-up of Panther production, Ike was asking that no more 75mm Shermans or 76mm M10’s be sent and insisted, rather, that only 76mm Shermans and 90mm TD’s be sent.  M36’s were being used after the war in #'s only by allies that were willing to settle for hand-me-down obsolete equiptment.

And don’t tell me the M36 wasn’t “iconic!” the US Army Heritage Center, just down the the road from where I lived in Carlisle, PA (which is an offshoot of the Army War College) has a sort of outdoor museum filled with all the most “iconic” army weapons systems from each of their wars.  It only includes 2 AFV’s.  Care to guess which 2?  Yep, you guessed it, an M4 Sherman tank and an M36 Jackson TD (affectionately known by the troops who loved it at the time as the “Slugger.”)  None were made after WW2 (indeed, as I pointed out, the TD battalions were demobilized immediately after the war, whereas tank battalions were maintained continuously until the present) and, as I’ve repreated several times, the M36 “Slugger” was actually made in greater #'s than either Tiger variant, and in #'s 3x what the Tiger were made in.

But note that it was no longer being produced in 1944.  Production was being turned over to M36’s (which used the same hull)  Meanwhile, M4’s were being given the cannons that had previously been used in the M10.  The fact that no more M10’s were being made after 1943 makes it strictly an early-war model from the US perspective… and the fact that Ike told the army to stop sending him 75mm Shermans makes it strictly an early-war model as well.

The M36 being used by the US’s poorer allies in the postwar period hardly makes the M36 iconic for those later wars.  No, the plaque at the Army Heritage Center beside the M36 is all about its WW2 service.  If they wanted a weapon iconic for Korea, they’d have chosen an M26 or M46 (or even a Sherman “Easy 8” since they were still being used in #'s unlike M36’s)  For Vietnam, the iconic tank would be an M48 or M60.  If they wanted an AFV, anyway.  In point of fact, they chose no AFV’s for those later wars at all.  (I forget what they had for Korea, if anything, but the Vietnam display is all about helicopters and an artillery “fire base.”)

I still don’t get why you are willing to throw your otherwise iron rule about differentiation from oob out the window in order to make sure that the US gets no good tanks.  It’s almost like you have an anti-US bias or something…

But you keep forgetting that the game moves forward through the years, and that (like Ike, who told the Army to stop sending him 75mm M4’s) we’ve already been given a surfeit of early Shermans oob.  To me it’s just as laughable to give the player as “upgrades” tanks that are inadequate against the Tigers FMG is rolling out.  FMG has rolled out Tigers, so he should roll out the logical American response to them, ESPECIALLY since (like Ike) we already have plenty of 75mm Shermans… more than we want, more than we could ever use…

It’s almost as though our Imperious Leader is assuming the role of McNair, the Imperious Bureaucrat, who kept standing in the way of getting Ike and Omar and the troops who wanted better tanks…

@Imperious:

But note that it was no longer being produced in 1944.

Thats like saying the Yamato was no longer being produced by 1944. The point is they made four times the number of this model and it saw action on every front. M36 saw action in the last months of the war, not unlike the Pershing which is in the same category. What is important is to have units that can work for games based on 1939-42 and not look ridiculous with post war tanks just because they were better. Rather look at the units that fought for the most part and use them. Its laughable to see a M36 in a 1940 game, its like time machine capabilities like that movie about the carrier that comes back in time to re fight with modern aircraft ( final countdown)

The M10 did not see as much action as the M18 just so you both know.  Also IL, Axis and Allies games start from 1940-42 but go on until the fighting is done, which round wise can last into the 1950’s.  I’m by no means advocating the M36 but for American army units, which as I have said fought for the most part from 43-45 (with the bulk of that in 44) mid to late war units are better suited then early war types such as the M10 and M4.  The M10 was obsolete by Kassarine Pass.  And yes it was produced in the greatest numbers, but a lot of that was for lend-lease (btw the nickname of “Wolverine” wasn’t even used by American but by the British troops who used them).  The same can be said for the M4 Sherman.  Both units are early-war types, obsolete by the end of Operation Torch, and both were mass-produced for lend-lease purposes.  The M4 and M10 weren’t used for D-Day or the European Theatre (except the early days in Sicily and Italy).  Why do you want American units that didn’t do the bulk of America’s fighting?

@dadler12:

We already have a plain M4 Sherman IL, so what is wrong with having a late war model, the models that liberated Europe?  The US Army did the bulk of its fighting from 1943-1945, so I really don’t see your point in saying no 1944 models.

Here, Here!

Tank 1 – M10 tank Destroyer (Most produced Allied TD, but M18 would be a better choice as M10 was obsolete by the time it was used in Africa in 1942)
Tank 2 – Sherman (Should be a late war 76mm model since we have an M4 already, not an M4A3 since it entered the war for 6 months but a M4A1 used form Tunisia on or a M4A1(76)W used from D-Day on)

The M18 is definitely a better choice than the M10, anyway.  Unlike the M10, it has some advantages over the 76mm Sherman, since it was faster, giving it a secondary use as a light/recon AFV that the M10 doesn’t have.  The M10 was basically a 76mm Sherman sans roof!  (and with a goofy-looking turret to boot!)  But I still prefer the good ole M36 “Slugger,” which “stood in the gap” while the Army brought the Pershing into play and completely replaced the M10 at the same time that the 76mm Sherman was completely replacing the 75mm Sherman.

The M10 did not see as much action as the M18 just so you both know.  Also IL, Axis and Allies games start from 1940-42 but go on until the fighting is done, which round wise can last into the 1950’s.  I’m by no means advocating the M36 but for American army units, which as I have said fought for the most part from 43-45 (with the bulk of that in 44) mid to late war units are better suited then early war types such as the M10 and M4.  The M10 was obsolete by Kassarine Pass.  And yes it was produced in the greatest numbers, but a lot of that was for lend-lease (btw the nickname of “Wolverine” wasn’t even used by American but by the British troops who used them).  The same can be said for the M4 Sherman.  Both units are early-war types, obsolete by the end of Operation Torch, and both were mass-produced for lend-lease purposes.  The M4 and M10 weren’t used for D-Day or the European Theatre (except the early days in Sicily and Italy).  Why do you want American units that didn’t do the bulk of America’s fighting?

Exactly!  And even many of those early-M4’s and M10’s were then being converted by the British after they got them by having 17-pdr’s installed, turning them into “Fireflies” and “Archers.”  By the end of the war, most British tanks were, in fact, fireflies, just as the Americans had converted over to 76mm Shermans.

I’m also not so sure about FMG’s small-ship picks.  Both the Narwhal and Somers classes were small, experimental classes.  If we’re going by the “most-used” criteria, both fall far short.  Here’s a list of the DD & SS classes arranged from most to least produced:

US DD classes #’s:

Fletcher: 175
Gearing & Sumner (identical in appearance): 156
Gleaves: 62
Benson: 30
Mahan: 18
Sims: 12
Benham: 10
Bagley: 8
Porter: 8
Farragut: 8
Somers: 5
Gridley: 4

US SS Classes #’s:

Balao: 128
Gato: 77
Tambor: 12
Sargo: 10
Porpise: 10
Salmon: 6
Barracuda: 3
Narwhal: 2
Cachalot: 2

Since oob has the Gato and Fletcher classes nailed down, the Balao and Sumner classes are the logical alternative.  Subs might be hard to tell apart on this scale anyway… but with DD’s the new twin turrets of the Sumner make it distinctive from oob… perfect!  Especially since FMG makes his turrets much more clear on the models than the rather indistinct oob ships.

@dadler12:

Tac – TBM Avenger (Fine although we have a Pacific Tac already so I’d like to see the A-20 or better yet B-26)

Did you mean the B-26 or the A-26?  (they’re often confused…)

I meant the Douglas A-20 which is an early-mid war twin engine bomber and the B-26 Marauder a mid-late war twin engine bomber.  I prefer the B-26.

Well, the A-20 was a smallish twin engine, putting it more-or-less in the same range as the Mosquito… (hence the “A” for attack desination, rather than “B” for bomber…)  and it was pretty fast, faster than most medium bombers, so it might fit the tac bomber profile OK… though it was kind of an early-war phenomenon… But the B-26 was a bigger and slower medium bomber.  The A-26 was the replacement for the A-20 and even though it was big enough to be in the medium bomber range it was actually faster than the A-20… almost Mosquito fast.  So maybe the A-26 would make a good tac bomber, even if it is rather large for the role…

The B-26, though… it opens the whole medium bomber can of worms…  Since the axis powers only have medium bombers, the B-26 (and B-25, for that matter) seems like more of a bomber than a tac bomber to me, unless we’re ready to add another air-unit category and separate “medium bombers” from “heavy bombers”… something I’ve contemplated but never tried, given that I’ve never had the pieces to do it before.

While I think it would be cool to have medium bomber pieces for the US, that creates a problem for the Axis.  FMG has already shown us the German and Italian bomber pieces and they are really medium size.  We don’t really have a heavy bomber for the Axis.  At least not yet.  Maybe they could come out with a heavy bomber piece in some future set, or one of coachofmany’s supplement sets.  I thought the Fw200 Kondor would have made a great bomber piece for Germany and could be used as a heavy bomber since it was a big, 4-engined, long-range bomber.  Although, I don’t think it carried a large enough bomb load to be considered “heavy”, but we could use a little creative license on that.

I love the FW-200 Condor - quite possibly one of the most beautiful airplanes ever made.

my list

Tank 1 – M18 Hellcat OR Jackson. (they both look really similar, so the piece could represent both)
Tank 2 – M26 Pershing (would be the heavy tank for the US. OOB Sherman would represent the light tank for the US.)
Transport – Liberty Ship
SS – Narwhal Class
DD – Gleaves-class OR Sumner class
CA – New Orleans class OR the Boston class
CV – USS Lexington class or Hornet class
BB – Pennsylvania Class(really want this one) 2nd would be the North Carolina Class
Bomber – B-24 Liberator
Tac – TBM Avenger
Truck – Standard Army
Air Trans – Douglas C-47
Fighter – P51 Mustang (PLEASE)
Artillery - M101 105 MM  howitzer
Infantry 1 – Standard European theater Uniform – M1 Rifle
Infantry 2 – Airborne Uniform – Thompson

What the heck is a “Boston class?”

I really don’t understand why people want the Pershing.  I’m all for tech units but not in the normal US set.  The Pershing, no matter who caused it Larsen, was not deployed in WW2 but for a matter of months.  It is silly to put in a heavy tank because the US did not use heavy tanks, as you have pointed out in other posts.  I agree with you on some things, like the 76mm Sherman, but not the Pershing.  I would be very disappointed if the Pershing was included in the US set.  FMG has said he is doing a tech piece set, Coachofmany is doing supplement sets as well, ask for the Pershing in those sets.  The US set should be a Sherman and a Tank Destroyer, period.  We can argue about models, but the US had a tank destroyer doctrine not a heavy tank doctrine and for better or worse that is how they fought WW2.

its the Baltimore class, i made a mistake i was looking at the wrong name. and yeah i agree with dadler i guess the Pershing can just be a tech unit for later, BUT i would still love to see the m18, cause for me when i was young that was my first
ww2 US toy tank. so when i think US tank i usually think about the m18 first