|
Endman posted:As for the teeny MG turret right on the top, I have no idea why they thought that was a good idea. 1930s American tank design was seeking to answer the question "how many MGs can we put on a single vehicle?" The M2 Medium had something insane like 10 machine guns and they reduced this somewhat for the M3, but it still has that goofy baby turret and two fixed-firing MGs in the hull that the driver was supposed to aim and fire. Those were pretty quickly deleted and the Brits took one look at that baby turret and said "that's dumb" and had a different turret built for their own use, which they called the M3 Grant.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Also the M3 tank arriving hot on the heels of the M3 tank caused confusion in England, which led to them coming up with all the names we know today - Lee/Grant for the former, and Stuart for the latter, a practice which followed on to the Sherman, Priest, et al
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:43
|
|
|
The M3 was a dead end design, but it did fair decently in the deserts of North Africa. Partially because the Allied competition was even more helpless at beating German tanks at range - the M3 introduced the first tank mounted gun that was a real threat to pz3 and pz4. But the hull mounted gun has a big advantage in the tankers needing to expose the entire (very tall) tank to be able to use it, which makes it tactically vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 07:50
|
|
|
IncredibleIgloo posted:The auxillary gun looks bigger, but the turret has a turret. This is a very interesting tank. What is it? It's a M3 Grant missing a cheese sandwich quote:Buried among the admirably detailed archives of The Tank Museum in Bovington, Dorset, is this account of a ferocious pitched battle, from the point of view of a tank commander – in this case, a British Lieutenant named Ken Giles. “The 75mm main gun is firing,” Lt Giles recalls, breathlessly. “The 37mm secondary gun is firing, but it’s traversed round the wrong way. The Browning [machine gun] is jammed. I am saying, ‘Driver advance’ on the A set, but the driver – who can’t hear me – is reversing. 
Comstar fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Feb 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 11:05
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:The M3 was a dead end design, but it did fair decently in the deserts of North Africa. Partially because the Allied competition was even more helpless at beating German tanks at range - the M3 introduced the first tank mounted gun that was a real threat to pz3 and pz4. But the hull mounted gun has a big advantage in the tankers needing to expose the entire (very tall) tank to be able to use it, which makes it tactically vulnerable. It wasn't entiely dead end - keep all the running gear and hull, scrape off the boxiest part at the top, replace the sponson with armour, and take the gun out of it and put it in a big new turret above, and you essentially have the first production model of the M4 Sherman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 11:24
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:It wasn't entiely dead end - keep all the running gear and hull, scrape off the boxiest part at the top, replace the sponson with armour, and take the gun out of it and put it in a big new turret above, and you essentially have the first production model of the M4 Sherman. True, I was more thinking of the design idea of a powerful gun supported by smaller turreted guns was a dead end. The M3 can be seen as a very late comer to the interwar experiments with several guns on the same chassis, a design tree that was otherwise smothered by the initial years of WW2. Putting big guns in a turret surrounded by smaller turrets, like the T-35, was a bad idea. But so was putting that big gun in the hull. Either just have one big hull gun and leave it at that, or put the gun in your turret.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:The M3 was a dead end design, but it did fair decently in the deserts of North Africa. Partially because the Allied competition was even more helpless at beating German tanks at range - the M3 introduced the first tank mounted gun that was a real threat to pz3 and pz4. But the hull mounted gun has a big advantage in the tankers needing to expose the entire (very tall) tank to be able to use it, which makes it tactically vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 12:10
|
|
|
US pre-war wargames worked out the firepower of a unit...based on how many and size of guns. So if you had a 75+37+.5+.3 you were much better at fighting than someone with just a 75+.3+.3. So all their wargames would have concluded "MORE GUNZ IS BETTER". Like they were playing a game of 40K and throwing more dice on the table is more important that if your loader can actually load a shell into a Leman Russ's small turret or a crew member can actually use a sponson heavy bolter to actually hit anything. Maybe this explains why everyone was crazy for hull mounted machine guns, and then everyone ditched them post WW2. Why DID everyone stick with them and then dump them? More room for much larger shell ammunition?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
It makes a bit more sense when you realise that a lot of the lighter AT guns like the 2-pdr and the 37mm weren't great at shooting at fortifications or infantry. It's why you had people designing things like the M2 and the Pz.IV. until the Ausf. F1 variant to do totally different jobs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Why DID everyone stick with them and then dump them? More room for much larger shell ammunition? It was ditched post war largely because it created a weak spot in the frontal armour for not enough tactical gain, the post war battlefield was going to be duelling tanks at 2km, no more tanks running down entrenched infantry with improvised point blank AT weapons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Maybe this explains why everyone was crazy for hull mounted machine guns, and then everyone ditched them post WW2. WWII radios (and intercoms) were relatively big and complex, to the point that (a) they were stuck in the hull rather than have them take up space in the turret, and (b) they needed a crewman to operate them. Once you've got another crewman (the radio operator) in the hull besides the driver, you might as well give a machinegun so he has something to shoot in combat. As radios got smaller and simpler you could move them to the turret and drop the extra crewman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Endman posted:Enough book covers, post tanks Pretty tank, but the inscription just says "[do something to] fascists", there was probably another decal in the kit you were meant to apply.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Pretty tank, but the inscription just says "[do something to] fascists", there was probably another decal in the kit you were meant to apply. It's a Beutepanzer 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:True, I was more thinking of the design idea of a powerful gun supported by smaller turreted guns was a dead end. The M3 can be seen as a very late comer to the interwar experiments with several guns on the same chassis, a design tree that was otherwise smothered by the initial years of WW2. Putting big guns in a turret surrounded by smaller turrets, like the T-35, was a bad idea. But so was putting that big gun in the hull. Either just have one big hull gun and leave it at that, or put the gun in your turret. People knew the M3 wasn't an ideal tank even as they designed it. It was a rushed interim tank. The intention was always to have a medium tank with a 75mm in a turret, but they couldn't get a turret big enough to fit the 75mm produced fast enough, and time was of the essence to get any good enough tank into production. So they slapped the main gun in the hull next to the driver.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
Comstar posted:US pre-war wargames worked out the firepower of a unit...based on how many and size of guns. So if you had a 75+37+.5+.3 you were much better at fighting than someone with just a 75+.3+.3. So all their wargames would have concluded "MORE GUNZ IS BETTER". Like they were playing a game of 40K and throwing more dice on the table is more important that if your loader can actually load a shell into a Leman Russ's small turret or a crew member can actually use a sponson heavy bolter to actually hit anything. In canadian lend-lease Shermans, the .50 cals almost universally got stripped from the tank and put into service anywhere and everywhere else. Infantry section bringing a few along? Sure. Stick one on an Otter? Why not!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:In canadian lend-lease Shermans, the .50 cals almost universally got stripped from the tank and put into service anywhere and everywhere else. Stick three in the turret ring of a Ram Kangaroo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Putting together some forces and terrain for a test game of I Ain't Been Shot Mum (and then CoC and then Battlegroup to see which I like best) The Soviet force is done. 2 rifle platoons, an HQ, and an MMG platoon  The German force is printed but not cleaned or assembled yet. And the terrain is... Coming along. It's kind of demoralizing seeing how sparse everything looks on a mat vs on my hobby workbench. I'm sure it'll look better once I get more fields/hedges/trees on.  And yes my bed is the only surface I have that can accommodate a gaming surface right now (And yes I know everything still needs painting)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
Some good looking minis, can't wait to see them painted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
Count Thrashula posted:Putting together some forces and terrain for a test game of I Ain't Been Shot Mum (and then CoC and then Battlegroup to see which I like best) Got a quick and dirty for how you did the removable style bases using the march to hell minis?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
Springfield Fatts posted:Got a quick and dirty for how you did the removable style bases using the march to hell minis? The MtH minis already had 10mm round bases on (most of) them, so I just threw together a Flames of War style base in Tinkercad with 11mm holes. They're all glued down because leaving them as sabots ended up being too fragile and fiddly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, does anyone have any resources on WW2 flag signals? Specifically for Italy, if possible. Since I bought three CV-35 tankettes to form the backbone of a BA armoured* platoon (with this trio being supported by an L6/40 flamer tankette and an M15/42) supporting my Alpini infantry platoon, for larger games. But the thing is, to better indicate the platoon commander/command tank, I bought some additional tank crewmen off Perry - including the one I'm using, which is a tank commander holding a signal flag out his hatch. The pic showed a yellow flag, which I might use as a fallback (that or maybe a white flag haha), but if anyone knows what the standard 'advance' flag colour is, I'd greatly appreciate it! (As a bonus, the 'extra tank crew' pack also included a based Italian tank crewman surrendering, with his hands up haha I'm definitely painting him up to use, as a marker for a surrendered/abandoned tank)*Using the word 'armoured' very, very loosely
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
Count Thrashula posted:The MtH minis already had 10mm round bases on (most of) them, so I just threw together a Flames of War style base in Tinkercad with 11mm holes. They're all glued down because leaving them as sabots ended up being too fragile and fiddly. Must of been the first one. The second ones don't, when I asked why they dropped them they cited customer request which was odd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
Any idea where to get Saga+Age of Vikings rulebooks in europe? It's out of stock most places, and super expensive where it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 11:42
|
|
|
Looks like the physical rulebook is sold out everywhere, but the Age of Vikings book is in stock with Gripping Beast themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 11:47
|
|
|
It seems to be in stock at Stronghold Terrain: https://stronghold-terrain.de/en/products/dark-age/saga-rules/englische-saga-regeln/
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 12:04
|
|
|
I accidentally ordered 2 copies of Bolt Action: Armies of Great Britain. But that's ok, one of them is BLANK every 2nd page. The book's the right length...just blank on both side of the double page, every 2nd page. So I have 1/2 a book. I have emailed Osprey and asked them for help. First time I've ever got a book from a publisher like this. I'm wondering if anyone noticed when it was printed and packed or if this is common for Bolt Action army books. Maybe I should sell it as a NFT. It would be just as useful. A special one of a kind edition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2022 12:48
|
|
|
Hi chums, it's me again asking napoleonic questions, but I have some fairly specific caveats: Integration I do not want to participate in a wider wargaming community at this point, so picking a locally used base or miniature size is less relevant, however I do want to have flexibility. Size My eyes have been going to pot over the last few years and while I've got glasses, the idea of messing around with 2mm or 6mm (which was what I was going to do last time) has kind of come to a halt. I'm not sure I have the time or inclination to paint >= 28mm miniatures, so It would seem that 12mm-18mm is probably the sweet spot? Subject Matter Though I am primarily interested in the Peninsular and Russian campaigns, I am not a grog enough for it to cost me 10x the amount in time or money to get the correct hats/etc. and I don't think I'm going to get away with a historical order of battle whatever happens in terms of time and money investment. System Since I last asked this question I see that Warlord have released their Epic Napoleonics. I did look at the preceding pages and the Waterloo subject matter and unusual mold lines do grate; but it seems like a sensible choice given my parameters above? Is there any reason to NOT go for it at least for the miniatures? I found the command and control aspects of Pike & Shotte and Chain of Command interesting, so I think a brigade/battalion level game is probably where I'm thinking, rather than regiment-level. After trying to play BattleTech with a friend, I think I'm looking towards simpler gaming systems i.e. Lasalle/DBN? I had considered 28mm but my 'wargaming table' is 3' x 7' at maximum and I'm thinking that ~15mm overall is a better choice. To actually contribute for a change, here's a picture of some Russian dudes I painted a few years ago: 
Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Mar 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Hi chums, it's me again asking napoleonic questions, but I have some fairly specific caveats: If you're limited by space I'd definitely looking at smaller scale minis. I'm playing with 28mm, and even at a 4' x 8' you're quickly starting to feel cramped once you've painted a bunch of battalions. I haven't tried painting any of the new Epic Napoleonics minis, but I think the main cons this far is that it's still a new range and there are very few other makers in the same size. So you've got to settle with what Warlord puts out, at least for a while. I'd look in facebook groups or ebay to see if you can find a sprue or two (they were included in at least one isse of Wargames Illustrated as giveaway) and paint some up and see if you like them. As for game, I think Lasalle is great. Lasalle 2 is pretty much a complete rewrite, not just a small edition change, and it's a very fast and fluent game. It tends to cut off the fat and skip the more boring part of a game (like movements far from an enemy) and aims at pushing you into relatively close quarter quickly, where your tactical choices suddenly become a lot more tricky. Combat resolution is also super quick, which I like but some find a turn-off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
If you like 28mm I would definitely pick up Sharp Practice! Even if you play larger games later, with a skirmish game like SP you can at least get playing before you're done with your full size army. And it's a really really good game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
I don't know how to answer any of your other questions, but nice minis 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Hi chums, it's me again asking napoleonic questions, but I have some fairly specific caveats: If you don't care too much about playing what ever the other local players already play, I would think the first question is - skirmish or battalions? There's a couple of skirmish games out these days that only need 5-20 figures a side. The most recent one is built for solo or 2 player gaming- The Silver Bayonet. Napoleonic soldier X-Com vs zombies/ghouls/monsters. Sharp Practice for more...conventional battles of a small unit or two. If you want some battalions or brigades instead, there's a lot more game systems to choose from. With my bad eyesight I found 28mm is easier for me to paint...but there's more time needed. If you want a cheaper army, Epic scale Black Powder gets an entire corp of an army in one box, and uses the most popular game rules. I found them pretty hard to read, they aren't nearly as clearly laid out as Bolt Action is for example. I found Field of Glory Napoleonic 2nd ed much better to read and understand, even if there a few tables you always need to check when doing combat results, but unless your in AU or NZ it's not nearly as played as much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
I have fallen in love with Sharp Practice for anything up to 100 man games, and at smaller sizes it also has a fun RPG element if you’re up for that. Apart from SP and some other much smaller skirmish games I don’t think there’s anything that works and is fun and satisfying now at anything larger than 10mm. I am really enjoying blucher on my kitchen table (against myself), but having played quite a bit of black powder recently, I dunno why they bother with rewriting for epic battles - it works best at small scale. I need at least a section as a piece I think these days, despite the fact I still have 60+ 28mm Frenchmen on the assembly/painting schedule.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
Thank you for the kind advice. I started this reply and in the meantime made a decision: I don't care hugely about Waterloo. I've read a lovely book about Waterloo (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00JIHEROQ/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title ) by Cornwell and so I'm a little interested in it - but maybe because my steady diet of Aubrey-Maturin and Sharpe has focused exclusively on the earlier stages of the war, I find them a good deal more interesting than the Hundred Days. However, I'm not enough of a grog to let that get in the way of my plastic dollies. Re: integration with other groups - My fleeting participation in this thread in the last few years is a sad reflection on the complete lack of opponents in the real world. There is a wargaming club nearby but with a baby coming along soon I've already had to pare down my pastimes to the bone and so it's not a priority for me at all. I would much rather use this as a way to left off steam between work (computers) and physical hobbies than a dominating pastime. So, given that I don't really need to integrate with anyone, and I would like to have some massed infantry in a potential game - I decided to pick up Warlord Epic Napoleonic battles' French Army Starter Set. Given that 6mm lead is comparable in price and half the size (bearing in mind my caveat about miniature size) I decided it was a non-starter. Maybe 2mm grains of rice at some point in the future. I did play Lasalle 1 a few times with MDF bases and adhesive battalion flags which I thought was quite interesting!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
Ignoring large or small units, working backwards from the Warlord? standard that three groups of four bases is a brigade, that would imply that four bases alone are a regiment, and two bases are a battalion, and each of the four centre companies are represented by a single stand. Warlord depict voltigeur flank companies separately in skirmish formation either attached to their battalion or formed under their own command, so that's fairly simple - but they do not speak of nor show anything of the grenadier companies. Given the otherwise fairly neat mapping of 1 stand = 1 company, my gut feeling is that Grenadiers are not designed to be depicted with the standard line infantry brigades, and if models are forthcoming would likely be formed into separate battalion or regiment-sized unit as required on the day. I'm confused that the Order of Battle for Ligny or Quatre Bras does not mention it at all, but maybe as temporary assignments that's not how it's recorded? Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Mar 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
It’s a strange one, caused entirely by people wanting a flag, drummer and officer per unit block, and it depends on what you want each block to be. Going on a napoleonic company size (french): 100ish privates 3 commissioned officers 14 NCOs 2-4 drummers That company probably wouldn’t have a flag - and NCOs on either side would have cute little pennants. 4-6 companies make a battalion, who also then get the battalion command elements: Chef de Battalion All the company drummers in a block Possibly some other musicians More senior NCOs Several officers They also have a fanion - a flag - guarded by several big men called fanion guards Now four main and one depot battalion make the regiment, who carry another flag (the eagle) and are loaded with even more officers. What this means in miniatures terms is do whatever you want and have as many drummers and flags as you fancy. No one plays consistently, no one does sections and companies without flags and command because it doesn’t look as cool. In whatever scale, if there’s miniatures at all, someone is doing it “historically wrong” and out of scale. No one is actually only going to have fanions and no eagles in a french army because that sucks. Edit: At whatever scale, if you want a block to be a battalion, it could have one flag and some command. If you want it to be a historically accurate section or company, no flag. If you’re doing 1 to 1 at a small scale, or 1 to 1 at a large scale but with few models, you probably hardly even want drummers! Edit 2: The whole grenadier company thing is baffling at most scales, because having four grenadiers on the side of your 28 man “battalion” is absolute nonsense, it would have been a hundred and change big guys on one side and a hundred and change small guys on the other side. I’m doing grenadiers and voltigeurs as their own “units” within the “company” of several units lenoon fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Mar 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
I play Russians, ostensibly for the 1813 campaign but also usable for 1812. They are organized into 48 model "Battalions." Each Battalions has eight bases (each a "company"), each with six figures. The figures are on 20x20mm magnetic square bases - six of these makes a 60x40mm base with removable individual figures. In each Battalion there is a "command" base with an officer, musician, and a flag. There's also a stand of Strelki (skirmishers) and Grenadiers, the rest are line infantry. Two of these Battalions make a Regiment; each of which has their own distinctive insignia. Four of these "Regiments" of line infantry plus two of "Jagers" makes a "Division," in this case 3rd Division "Konovnitsin," historically part of Tutchkov's Corps at Borodino and Leipzig. The system is as close to historically accurate as I can get, and it works with pretty much any Napoleonic game that uses 28mm models. I can also use individual figures with skirmish games like Sharp Practice or Muskets & Tomahawks. You could do something like this - paint a bunch of models, call them a "Battalion," with that battalion's insignia, flag, etc. Then paint more and call them a "Regiment" and so on. I made a big ol' spreadsheet of this, if anyone is interested I'll PM it to you. Cessna fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Mar 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
Thank you lenoon - while I was waiting for a reply I did my own research and I edited the content of my post so I do apologise for anyone else reading and finding the to be a lack of continuity. Thank you for all the tips, that's very helpful indeed. Given the size of the miniatures I guess as long as I get the right collar/cuff colours (be they blue, red or yellow) and trouser/lapel colours (be they blue or white) I guess I'm mostly in order. I'll see if I can get the pom-poms coloured properly. Were there regimental identifiers that I should know about other than specific eagles/flags? It doesn't seem to be... Time to get started on 92e Regiment d'Infanterie de Ligne (Tissot) of 1er Brigade (Gauthier) under 9e Division (Foy) under II Corps (Reille)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Some ligne and légère regiments had different facings, trim sometimes trousers and coats etc, but I think the regularity with which any of these things were present in reality is massively overstated. The best free resource (it’s 100 days specific but will do for any post 1812 french) is this uniform guide Edit: with the warlord stuff, ignore everything they do in terms of accuracy, honestly. They make kits to look good on the tabletop. The voltigeur and grenadier companies were big units that can’t be represented “accurately” at anything other than 1 base = 1 company scale. If you’re doing that, a base of warlord normal guys with green and yellow Pom poms or plumes and then a unit with red will do for most units. If you’re doing smaller scales grenadiers and voltigeurs would have their own NCOs and junior officers, not just be a slightly differently dressed block. Additionally the whole flank companies get the sabre thing is wargaming shorthand, in reality it seems napoleon’s armies were followed by mountains of discarded “flank company” sabres! Edit 2: I’ll have an article up about this on goonhammer in a few weeks lenoon fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Mar 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Re: integration with other groups - My fleeting participation in this thread in the last few years is a sad reflection on the complete lack of opponents in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Thank you lenoon - while I was waiting for a reply I did my own research and I edited the content of my post so I do apologise for anyone else reading and finding the to be a lack of continuity. For French infantry regiments there's pretty much nothing short of the few regiments that were dressed in white for a few brief years before 1806 that will be noticable at that scale. The differences in uniforms were much smaller than say, the British or the Austrians, and were usually things like slightly different shaped cuffs or different colours of collars. Also, these variations were often badly documented and even full time scholars argue about which ones are just made up afterwards. Also, if you haven't found out yet, you can do straight up Swiss and Italians by just switching the colours. They used almost identical uniform cuts, but with different colours (green/white for italians, red for swiss). So if you get tired of painting blue you can get some variety in there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 21:41
|
|