Yeah I’ve been trying to find Table Tactics Central Powers expansion.
No, i mean the board game! HBG made a Global 1914 like Global 1939
HBG US Set in Optional Colors
-
There pretty close. Not perfect but 98% there. Not noticeable unless your closely examining them. I seriously wouldnt worry.
-
Coach and Variable just make the all the colors listed above, I will buy complete sets.
WARRIOR888
-
Coach and Variable just make the all the colors listed above, I will buy complete sets.
Thoes426 :evil:
-
Coach and Variable just make the all the colors listed above, I will buy complete sets.
WARRIOR888
Me, too. I love this idea.
-
I say go with the current UK Tan, Anzac Silver, the current Russian Red/maroon/brown (whatever you want to call it), and OOB French Blue.
-
Yeah, I like all the colors listed as well. I also like Yavid’s idea of molding them in French blue. Not sure what I personally would use them for, but I think they would look cool.
-
Yeah, I like all the colors listed as well. I also like Yavid’s idea of molding them in French blue. Not sure what I personally would use them for, but I think they would look cool.
Well, seeing as the Free French after D-Day were equipped with mostly US gear, it makes sense as a FF option.
-
Even if you did just particular pieces for individual sale this would be awesome. In particular I would love to have escort carriers for UK (G40 Tan) and ANZAC.
-
We have sent the colors for matching and looking at the polls we will decide on the colors.
UK Tan
ANZAC
Revised Green
Neutral Light Blue
Neutral Light GreenThese seem the most popular.
Next year we will make another neutral set to compliment the set we have already put out. -
:( no french blue, no russian brown :(
-
-
@coachofmany:
:( no french blue, no russian brown :(
maybe French blue
You do French Blue and you’ll be my new favorite person.
-
:( no french blue, no russian brown :(
What on earth would you do with Russian brown Americans?
-
-
:( no french blue, no russian brown :(
What on earth would you do with Russian brown Americans?
Lend-Lease supplies. More for flavor than units.
That might make sense for many US units… HBG’s US Supplemental set seems like a laundry list of things that DIDN’T get much lend-lease Soviet use to me, though… For instance, the Russians actually rather liked the Sherman tank (which isn’t in the set) but had no use for the smaller Stuart (which is in the set…) I also haven’t heard of them getting much use out of M7 Priests, M18 Hellcats, or US aircraft, and I’m pretty certain they weren’t granted any US BB’s or CVE’s… As to the US Marine set… Neither did they use US helmets, and though the diff between Russian and US helmets could be overlooked on this scale, the Russians didn’t much like the Thompson smg (which they claimed didn’t have enough penetration) and I haven’t heard of them using US flamethrowers, flamethrower tanks or LVT’s (and DEFINITELY not Corsair fighters.)
-
looking at it… your completely right about about lend-lease american equipment the only things that make any sense is shermans, trucks, transport planes, p-40s, and the b-25s. oh and using recoloring of the american paratrooper would be good to get soviet paratroopers.
-
looking at it… your completely right about about lend-lease american equipment the only things that make any sense is… .
…shermans
Not that the Russians didn’t use SOME Stuarts, but not many; the gun-armor race had already moved too far on the eastern front for the Stuart, the Russians knew it, and the Americans stopped sending them after just a couple hundred or so.
…p-40s, and the b-25s
I didn’t know that the Russians used P-40s and B-25s, but I guess I’m not surprised. Those things were flippin ubiquitous!
…oh and using recoloring of the american paratrooper would be good to get soviet paratroopers
I’m not sure that the US para’s are all that close in look and gear to Soviet paras, though I suppose they’d be better than nothing. I’ll probably stick with EotH para’s though, which are more “generic-looking.” Did the Russians get a significant number of folding-stock M1 carbines? I would imagine the Russians might like the the M1 carbine OK as they compare rather interestingly with the famous PPSh. They are ballistically (.30"/1900 fps vs. .32"/1600 fps) and ergonomically similar (light, wood stock, short barrel) but I would expect the folding stock version was rare enough to have been reserved for “special” troops in the US and not exported much…
-
…p-40s, and the b-25s
I didn’t know that the Russians used P-40s and B-25s, but I guess I’m not surprised. Those things were flippin ubiquitous!
Not sure about the B-25s, I don’t think the US exported a lot of bombers. The P-40s however were shipped to quite a few places. The Russians got a lot of them, of course you know the Chinese got some and I think some were even shipped to England, although they were better equipped than most with planes. There were probably others that I just can’t think of at the moment.
Interesting side note: you know the Brewster Buffalo fighter? It performed horribly for our boys in the Pacific in the early part of the war. It was kind of slow and clunky and the dang Zeros flew circles around them. However, some were sent to Finland, probably before they became officially allied with Germany, and the Finns added heavier armor and armament to them and did quite well against the Red Air Force. I just thought it was interesting that a fighter plane that was so bad for us with a few modifications ended up being very good for someone else.
-
Not sure about the B-25s, I don’t think the US exported a lot of bombers.
Well, some early bombers were seen abroad quite a bit (Lockheed Hudson, Martin Maryland, Douglass DB-7) And the British did get pretty much anything they wanted, including a fair # of B-17’s & B-24’s (mostly used for special missions, as they were producing quite a few of their own heavies) and they got quite a number of B-25’s. But that’s a different story than the Russians…
The P-40s however were shipped to quite a few places. The Russians got a lot of them, of course you know the Chinese got some and I think some were even shipped to England, although they were better equipped than most with planes. There were probably others that I just can’t think of at the moment.
Yeah the British used a lot more US planes (and tanks and pretty much anything) than is often realized. They loved the P-47, were the ones to give the P-51 its initial real-world testing and to finally get it “right” by switching into it the British Merlin engine, and they were the ones to give quite a few US vehicles the names by which they later became famous: I think they might have even named the “Tomahawk” although I know that they also called variations of it the “Kittyhawk” and “Warhawk.”
Interesting side note: you know the Brewster Buffalo fighter? It performed horribly for our boys in the Pacific in the early part of the war. It was kind of slow and clunky and the dang Zeros flew circles around them. However, some were sent to Finland, probably before they became officially allied with Germany, and the Finns added heavier armor and armament to them and did quite well against the Red Air Force. I just thought it was interesting that a fighter plane that was so bad for us with a few modifications ended up being very good for someone else
Yeah, I was familiar with that story. It just goes to show that combat effectiveness is always a relative thing, relative to the situation and the opponent, and there is enough subjectivity involved, too, that often repuations are developed that are better or worse than deserved. A great example is the M1/M2 carbine, which got a reputation in Korea for poor “stopping power.” At the same time, the same soldiers would often give high praise to the PPSh, with similar, but inferior, ballistics. Leroy Thompson, in his book on the M1 Carbine, gives evidence that alot of the criticisms of the M1 carbine were either myths or based on poor fire discipline or unrealistic range expectations.
Oh, and speaking of the M1 carbine, if Wikipedia can be believed, the Russians recieved a grand total of 7 of them. I guess having millions of PPSh’s on hand with their similar (ballistic) capabilities made getting short-ranged carbines a low priority for them.
-
Not sure about the B-25s, I don’t think the US exported a lot of bombers.
Well, some early bombers were seen abroad quite a bit (Lockheed Hudson, Martin Maryland, Douglass DB-7) And the British did get pretty much anything they wanted, including a fair # of B-17’s & B-24’s (mostly used for special missions, as they were producing quite a few of their own heavies) and they got quite a number of B-25’s. But that’s a different story than the Russians…
Russia recieved 866 b-25s through lend-lease and built many more under licence.
Suggested Topics
