|
Geisladisk posted:Related: Britain and the US used very similar colors for their tanks - Olive Drab for the US, and a lighter brown for the UK. The USSR used green. Germany used dunkelgelb as the base, with dark green and brown camouflage. Nah, dunkelgelb isn't actually a terrible colour. With the patterning of brown and green it can blend in to a lot of backdrops; hedges, fields, rock... The one that does confuse me more is the original grey, which just seems bad for pretty much anywhere.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Yeah, the flat grey really stands out. Especially when you're moving through fields & whatnot. I'm assuming it was a matter of not bothering with camouflage at the beginning, then they were winning for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
The dark grey wasn't THAT bad when they were in France in 1940 - they were fighting in areas with lots of shadows (trees, villages) and had air superiority. In open fields of Russia, forget it. But there the dark yellow was pretty decent; I google "Ukraine Steppe" and get this: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:They were A DIFFERENT shade of yellow. Or brown. Or sometimes grey. And green.  Honestly at that point you could just paint them whatever colour you want and there'd probably be some real-life paint mishap that explains it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Cessna posted:In 1944 they switched base colors from the dark yellow to dark green. Source: Fat lot of good that did them! :vv:
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The dark grey wasn't THAT bad when they were in France in 1940 - they were fighting in areas with lots of shadows (trees, villages) and had air superiority. The ukrainian flag is literally based on that view, according to my ukrainian friend when I sent her a nearly-identical photo of a west Texas cotton field. also I suspect grey tanks wasn't a purely tactical choice, something something les pantalons rouges
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The ukrainian flag is literally based on that view, according to my ukrainian friend when I sent her a nearly-identical photo of a west Texas cotton field. Leave it to Nazis to let fashion get in front of tactical considerations [links to the milhist post about the way Nazi uniforms had been sown]
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:also I suspect grey tanks wasn't a purely tactical choice, something something les pantalons rouges That's possible, but I lack conclusive documentation to say for certain. As it is, the color of Panzers in 1939-1940 is a controversial subject among modelers and wargamers. For a long time the consensus was "grey," and only grey. German field equipment during the late 30's was, for the most part, painted grey. From artillery pieces to machinegun tripods - grey. Also, after Summer 1940 - especially during Barbarossa - there are lots of color photos that show that yes, the Panzers were grey. So, grey, right? In 2002 a couple of researchers dug up some OKW orders from 1935 which call for the Panzers to be painted grey with brown camouflage spots over 1/3 of their surface. People looked at color photos from that era and, yes, some appeared to support this. But, well, other photos did not. Needless to say people flipped out on the 'net arguing over this. ALL Panzers were grey and brown, you're just too color-blind to see it, the tanks were covered in dust, how can you not see something so obvious, those photos were badly colorized, etc, etc, etc. All sorts of flamewars raged. I think it is safe to say some Panzers were grey with brown spots, others were not. Not all military orders are universally or immediately applied - I remember being in the USMC when they changed from MERDEC to NATO camouflage and for a long time every unit was a hodge-podge of paint schemes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
I remember concluding that the brown spots were sporadically used through Poland and the very beginning of France. (I vaguely recall a first-hand account of a French child who had described brown and grey camoflague as they captured his town.) I also came up with a  theory that it was an ad hoc field application of mud that had dried. This wouldn't make it through rain (or some officer prioritizing fashion over function,) and it would have been cleaned off for official photos - further explaining the confusion. There were documented instances of covering the crosses with mud, and it's not too much of a stretch to reason that some tank crews went further.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
There are color - not colorized, color film - photos of the Nazi victory parade in Poland, and they clearly show Panzers in a solid very dark grey: Some of the arguments got ridiculous. "The brown is there, you just can't see it!" "If you can't see it, is it there?" and so on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
I don't think I'll ever get over how powerful color photos of the world wars are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
those are small tanks
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:those are small tanks Nah those TCs are just 8 feet tall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:those are small tanks They're Panzer Is, which were tiny. (6 US tons.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
nazis look so evil man
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:I don't think I'll ever get over how powerful color photos of the world wars are. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Reading up on north africa, the Commonwealth soldiers commented that the DAK uniforms were completely white when they finally capitulated. Especially hats and caps. That desert sun quickly made any colour pale into bone white.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Reading up on north africa, the Commonwealth soldiers commented that the DAK uniforms were completely white when they finally capitulated. Especially hats and caps. That desert sun quickly made any colour pale into bone white. German uniforms were made of natural fibers until (roughly) 1943-1944, when they started introducing synthetic fibers into the cloth. The typical feldgrau service uniforms were wool, the uniforms of the Afrika Korps were (mainly) cotton twill. Dyed natural fibers tend to be less color-fast than synthetics; they fade relatively quickly. That said, pretty much every army's uniforms in WWII were natural fiber; they all faded, but the Allies had the ability to replace their uniforms more often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Ilor posted:I once got a physical copy of Bernd Pietz' "Afrikakorps: Rommel's Tropical Army in Original Color" through the inter-library loan system and it was pretty amazing. I made a couple of scans, but this one is probably my favorite (click for big): Those are faaar paler than most DAK miniatures get painted. That's a nice photo to save for reference. Also, did nazis look evil to contemporaries (uniform-wise) or is it because we're going on eighty years of nazis and nazi-looking fictional organizations being go-to villains?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
Ther WW2 uniforms were an evolution of the WWI ones, so I assume the sinister connotations are after the fact. That said - they were using all sorts of skulls and runes, so there was clearly an effort being made to scary themselves up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
That's a strong tradition though, I give you the Brunswick Hussars (who had mixed results in battle but spent a lot of energy on looking scary instead).
lilljonas fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Dec 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Another example, the British Army's Royal Lancers, who through their predecessors have had a skull since the early 18th century:
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Yeah, Skulls and Crossbones were nothing new. There was also the Death's Head Hussars of Prussia. Symbols of death have been long used in war. I'd say it might have been weird by that time to see it incorporated on the scale that it was for the SS though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Reading up on north africa, the Commonwealth soldiers commented that the DAK uniforms were completely white when they finally capitulated. Especially hats and caps. That desert sun quickly made any colour pale into bone white.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
I love how even in this photo of a big fancy parade a lot of the uniforms are slightly different colours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
And those tanks are dirty as hell. drat guys, Hitler's gonna be there. I'm sure you can loot a mop and a bucket somewhere in Paris.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:And those tanks are dirty as hell. drat guys, Hitler's gonna be there. I'm sure you can loot a mop and a bucket somewhere in Paris. If I was an evil dictator I would have any military parade (especially after conquest) with grimy soldiers and gear, because it would show that they fought hard to achieve victory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Greggster posted:If I was an evil dictator I would have any military parade (especially after conquest) with grimy soldiers and gear, because it would show that they fought hard to achieve victory. Kind of the reverse of the Moscow parade where troops marched pretty much straight into combat. Speaking of parades, one of the more surreal elements of WW2 is that the Allies held multiple victory parades in Berlin after the war. For obvious reasons, they appeared to be basically unattended, the pictures always struck me as odd with soldiers in dress uniforms and clean armored vehicles moving in parade formation through a decimated landscape.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
So, I'm looking at German artillery cause they're good in Flames of War for punishing infantry platoons on objectives, which seems really important. Basically... it has me wondering why you would ever take any of the larger platforms. You have three sizes in your infantry company. 8cm, 7.5cm, and 15cm, that are all on big slow bases and go up a bit in effective range in each step. However! With the small ones (8cm), you get the full saturation at max guns (a little better than +1 to hit), with medium (7.5cm) ones at 33% higher points cost you get medium saturation (no modifiers) and slightly better range and negligible damage to tanks. Finally at large guns (15cm) you have lowest saturation at two guns which give you basically -1 to hit for the same cost as 6 small mortars, but with the largest range and almost a sure kill against trenches and a chance to kill lightly armoured tanks. Basically... why do the 7.5cm's exist cause they seem terrible. Mortar platoons seem like the most cost efficient one at reliably murdering infantry, why would you pay more points for a mixed role unit like the 15cm gun when you can just bring real AT and shoot tanks with it. The Nebelwerfer Battery platoon also seems to just outclass the 7.5 cm having longer range, being purchased in more convenient numbers, hitting high saturation, and maintaining the AT value of 2 to take out basic tanks... But it is a support platoon so that has formation implications I think. I don't really see the point in taking heavy artillery or options that can't field at least 3-4 teams for the good hitting values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 07:18
|
|
|
Battlefront have always priced artillery linearly despite the fact that the three and five gun breakpoints are more useful than any equivalents; it's also why everyone takes nebs and not cannon artillery. Battlefront also tend to overcost an artillery piece having a direct fire profile, despite the fact that you'll almost never use it on account of the team's mobility issues and extreme fragility. Really, artillery needs to go: 1-2 teams: Really cheap because rerolling hits is suffering regardless of how nice the bombardment is 3 teams: normal cost 4 teams: only a point or two on 3 because all it is is a little insurance on losing the 3 gun bombard 5 teams: much more because now you're rerolling misses, which is amazing 6+: just insurance on 5 teams You can see on profiles like the soviet mortars, where you can get 3, 6, or 9 guns for bombardment, though, that BF just has a fixed cost per team and charges you as much for the three guns that take you from 6 to 9 guns (a pretty much meaningless change) as the ones that take you from 3 to 6 guns (an improvement of about 25% of a bombardment and a no-brainer if you can spare points).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 08:50
|
|
|
How big a table do you need for 28 mm battles beyond 40k? I am going to build a table-top for my man cave, and I can fit 6"x4" but I can probably go 8"x6" if I don't leave much room to sit around it otherwise. I'm initially talking Napoleonic scale Brigade battles using General De Brigade Deluxe or Black Powder. I also have General De Armee and I'm waiting on CHARGE and some other Donald Featherstone 40 year old war game books that are 2nd hand (mostly for old times sake). (I already ordered the Warlord Get Started Box, but might go 18 mm Eureka/AB). Comstar fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Dec 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 11:55
|
|
|
Comstar posted:How big a table do you need for 28 mm battles beyond 40k? I am going to build a table-top for my man cave, and I can fit 6"x4" but I can probably go 8"x6" if I don't leave much room to sit around it otherwise. I'm initially talking Napoleonic scale Brigade battles using General De Brigade Deluxe or Black Powder. I also have General De Armee and I'm waiting on CHARGE and some other Donald Featherstone 40 year old war game books that are 2nd hand (mostly for old times sake). 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 12:04
|
|
|
Comstar posted:How big a table do you need for 28 mm battles beyond 40k? I am going to build a table-top for my man cave, and I can fit 6"x4" but I can probably go 8"x6" if I don't leave much room to sit around it otherwise. I'm initially talking Napoleonic scale Brigade battles using General De Brigade Deluxe or Black Powder. I also have General De Armee and I'm waiting on CHARGE and some other Donald Featherstone 40 year old war game books that are 2nd hand (mostly for old times sake). A 28mm Nappy table with room to maneuver would be something. Far too often do you see 28mm historical tables where the battle line stretches from edge to edge. Of course, you can hardly be satisfied with a smaller one if you have been bitten by Napoleonic Uniforms Bug.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 12:25
|
|
|
6' is probably as deep as you want to go, although (speaking of old-school) Charles Grant was into 7' square tables. Or maybe that was his son. His The War Game is a decent read and also a lot like Charge! if you want more stuff from that era. Plays... well, I'd rather play either of those two than Black Powder, but I'm just not a Black Powder fan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
Well, depends on how many units you plan on getting. We play in 20mm on 6' x 4', and are starting to feel the squeeze with about 10-15 battalions per side. If you plan on going as big as that, I highly suggest getting as big a table as possible. Our plan for our Waterloo scenario involves 22-25 battalions/batteries/cavalry regiments per side, and we'll definitely be using double tables to manoeuvre properly. By the way, I finally pulled the trigger on the Sharpe Practice rules. What are the absolute minimum number of troops per side to have a decent game? I'm already addicted to these Danish Perry Miniatures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 12:43
|
|
|
That's no table. . It''s a cathedral?!. Please link more pics and store to what battle that is? Looks too flat for Waterloo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
Fish and Chimps posted:Well, depends on how many units you plan on getting. We play in 20mm on 6' x 4', and are starting to feel the squeeze with about 10-15 battalions per side. If you plan on going as big as that, I highly suggest getting as big a table as possible. I'd aim for at least 2 units of line, preferably 3+ groups strong and at least one unit of skirmishers. With anything less it'd just be a duel. Perhaps you can cross Øresund and try it out with lilljonas and me over xmas?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
Comstar posted:That's no table. . It''s a cathedral?!. Please link more pics and store to what battle that is? Looks too flat for Waterloo. http://www.waterlooreplayed.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTlDWIYPDlg
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 13:35
|
|
|
zokie posted:I'd aim for at least 2 units of line, preferably 3+ groups strong and at least one unit of skirmishers. With anything less it'd just be a duel. But how big is a group? I've actually written directly with liljonas about a road trip. My group of gaming friends would very much like to visit and see your setup, since your club has been an inspiration to how we would like to run our scenario. There's just the three of us, so it shouldn't be too much of a hassle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Toalpaz posted:Basically... why do the 7.5cm's exist cause they seem terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 14:00
|
|