HBG Japan Supplement Set

Sounds good, Coach.  Any set made by you would be most welcome.

Militaryman077,

I couldn’t agree more that ANY set that the “Coach” makes is worth having!
And I, like most players, intend to buy everything he makes.  Thanks again, Doug.

“Tall Paul”

Ditto!!!

@coachofmany:

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/Nippon/Japanese.htm

G5N
G8N
Ki91

Nice choices!!

Everyone,

I made the above somewhat all-inclusive listing of Japanese Aircraft Types for use as a reference.  You should note that the aircraft that I thought were important to be produced I put in Bold Face type.  Even so, I wasn’t imagining that all of these aircraft would be produced in only ONE set.  Between HBG and FMG I think 3-4 sets would probably cover these units.

If only ONE aircraft made it into the HBG Japanese Suplement set I would choose the G5N “Liz”.  We not only need a Japanese 4-Engine Bomber, but this aircraft design is so “Japanese looking” with the twin tails and so unique-looking I think it is a great choice for inclusion in the HBG Japanese Supplement set.

As a possible 2nd unit (of the 12 in HBGs Set) I might suggest the Ki-61 Tony Fighter.  It was unique as it was the only mass-produced Japanese Fighter with a liquid-cooled in-line engine.  It was powerful, defensively armored, fast, and good looking also.

–-----------------------------------------

I think all of us would agree that we want an improved “Zeke”, “Val”, and “Kate” some day(soon?).

What Do YA’LL Think???

“Tall Paul”

i agree with your heavy bomber its unique looking. but i still rather see the oscar or the frank for the fighters over the tony or zero

Cvl, BB, CA. At first anyway!

CVL,BB, and DD/CA for me.

   I think it should be obvious to produce the same TYPES OF UNITS HBG produced for their US Supplement set.

                           –---------------------------------------

  HBG’s US Supplement Set included:       Japanese Supplement Set

 Early Battleship       “Nevada Class”        “Kongo Class”
 CVE Escort Carrier   “Casablanca Class”   “Hosho Class”

 Torpedo Bomber      TBF “Avenger”         B5N Type 97 “Kate”

 Early Fighter           P-40 “Warhawk”      A6M Type 0 “Zeke”
 Late Fighter            P-51 “Mustang”      Ki-61 “Tony”
*Medium Bomber        B-25 “Mitchell”       *G5N “Liz”
 Transport Plane       C-46 “Commando”   Type LO “Thelma”
 
 Light Tank              “Stuart”                Type 95 Ha-Go
*Tank Destroyer        “Hellcat”                            
 S/P Artillery             “Priest”                Type 1 Ho-Ni II
 Transport Truck       “Mack”                
 Paratroop Infantry    “Airborne”
 
   *One obvious exception should be noted here. Â

   1.  HBG produced a 2-engine Medium Bomber(B-25) in it’s US Supplement Set.  Since the Japanese OOB already have a 2-engine Bomber, but do not a 4-engine Bomber, I believe a Japanese 4-engine Bomber(G5N Liz) should be substituted for the 2-engine Bomber TYPE(B-25) in the HBG Japanese Supplement Set.

                                                                                   “Tall Paul”

      Â

  Â

Sorry if my above text is “messed-up” somehow.  I don’t know how that happenned, probably my big fingers.
                                                                                “Tall Paul”

What Tall Paul said ^^^

Perfect.

tall pall i agree with all of your pieces accept for your choices of fighters.
for me i rather not see pieces we already have such as the zeros. so for the early war fighters i rather see the Ki-43 Hayabusa. these were actually the second most produced fighters japan released during WW2. also they were the fighters that were used the most, for the Japanese infamous kamikaze attacks.

second for the late war fighter Ki-84 Hayate because it was considered to be the best japanese fighter to see the large operations during World War 2.
i would also agree with Kawasaki Ki-100 which was released 1945 and was considered one of japans best fighters

Lunarwolf and Others,

The following are only my opinions and I don’t believe there are any “right” or “wrong” answers.  I believe a thorough discussion can bring about a better understanding on everyone’s part.

I can understand any difference of opinion, especially on Japanese Fighters since there are so many good choices, like yours.

HBG and FMG have already made(or anounced) duplicate units such as two different Trucks, both making the TBF “Avenger” Torpedo Bomber and have discussed replacing the OOB Heavy Cruiser with a newer, better detailed version of the same.  So I don’t think there are any problems with producing a better “Zeke” as well as other units, “Kates” and “Vals” immediately come to mind.

And eventually, I would love to have many many different units available,…eventually.

------------------------------------------

Point #1

I think we should primarily look at this from the perspective UNIT TYPES instead of simply what might be “Cool” to have.  We need to end up with units of simular types from all countries.

For example, IMHO we don’t need an “Ise/Hyuga-Type” Battleship/Carrier hybrid as there is no comparable Allied equivilent.

I personally would love to have a Ki-46 Type 100 “Dinah” as I believe it to be one of the COOLEST LOOKING WW2 aircraft ever designed.  It was used as an Attack/Light Bomber/Night Fighter/Recon aircraft.  But until it’s decided to produce Attack/Light Bomber/Night Fighter/Recon aircraft I haven’t even mentioned my wish.  The DeHavilland Mosquitto is already available OOB, and the Douglas A-20 “Havoc” would be the American equilvilent.  The A-20 “Havoc” was used as a Light Bomber and modified as an Attack aircraft w/6 50 cal. for strafing and skip-bombing(along with the B-25s).  Can you say "Battle of the Bismark Sea? You know,…this might be something to consider.

–-------------------------------------------------

Also, I believe each unit needs to be as unique as possible, and keeping in mind historical values and the production totals of each choice.

–-------------------------------------------------

Also, "“Bang for the Buck” is a term we should all keep in mind.  Whenever one unit was used as several TYPES or by more than one COUNTRY we’ve just multiplied our units available!

Some examples:

The Japanese Type LO “Thelma” Transport could also be used as an Allied Transport or to represent an Allied Patrol/Bomber plane, the Lockheed
PV-1 “Ventura” that many Allied countries used.

The American Douglas C-47 “SkyTrain” (to be produced by FMG) could also be used as a Japanese Transport as they were one of four allied types that the Japanese built under license.

There are several examples of this kind.

A little paint and/or decals and you have several more choices available.  And this should help HBGs and FMGs sales.  And personally, I want them to make a profit on their huge investment so we can have even more units!

Point #2

Your choice of the Ki-43 Type 1 “Oscar” is an EXCELLENT choice for a Japanese Early(Army) Fighter and I would be happy with this unit if it were produced.

But if it were a choice between an (Army) “Oscar” and a much better detailed version of a (Navy) “Zeke” I would choose the “Zeke”.  Mainly because it would look better flying the “Zekes” off my Carriers.  And the “Zekes” were produced in much larger numbers and much better known.

I originally listed the A5M Type 96 “Claude” for my choice as a Japanese Early War Fighter.  Realizing that the “Claude” was “too early”(Chinese/Japanese War) for our WW2 Pacific game I changed it to the A6M Type 0 “Zeke”.

Point #3

The Ki-100 is a late war radial version of the Ki-61 “Tony”. 
IMHO the Ki-61 “Tony” is a better choice on many levels:

Ki-61 “Tony”                                      Ki-100
Available      Entire war                                          Feb. 1945
Total          3,078                                                396

Also, since the Ki-61 “Tony” was the ONLY in-line engine Fighter the Japanese had, IMHO I believe it garners points for it’s “uniqueness” as well.

What Do YA’ll Think?

“Tall Paul”

i also believe that these aren’t right or wrong answers i’m just stating my opinions as you are. but to me the tony would just be an burnt orange Bf109 on the board, so i wouldn’t see the Tony as unique, plus Ki-84 Hayate was one of the only japanese fighters that could compete with the late war fighters. that would make a better choice as the counter part to the US supplement sets P-51 mustang.

Lunarwolf,

You’re of the opinion that the Ki-61 “Tony” is simply a “burnt orange Bf-109”.  I respectfully disagree.  First, although both a/c are long and slender the “Tony” has a drooping nose and other characteristics that would make it easily identifiable as a “Tony”, not to mention it is a JAPANESE a/c.

IMHO the Ki-84 “Frank”, although a good choice, looks VERY simular to a “Zeke” and I believe we might be better served by something more VISUALLY DISTINCTIVE in our choices.  I’m  certainly not against the “Frank”, but I believe we might make a better, more VISUALLY DISTINDTIVE choice.

My choice for a late war Japanese Fighter would be the N1-K1-J Shinden “George”.  It had a much thicker fuselage, somewhat like an American P-47, and would be easy to differentiate from the “Zeke”.

–------------------------------------

IMHO I think our primary consideration should be the TYPES OF UNITS.

And as for the choices for each TYPE, we should choose ones that are as VISUALLY DISTINCTIVE as possible.  Remember, these are very small units.  I believe we should avoid any future confusion by not producing visually simular units.

Also, like the “Coach” says, “Unique” or “Visually Distinctive” units are a plus for him, too.

I respect any and all opinions and I believe we can all discuss our ideas freely.
And by learning the reasons behind different people’s choices come to a better understanding of WHY they chose the units they did.

Although I’m a serious history buff,…I choose to look at these choices more along the lines of a LOGICAL viewpoint considerring all of the variables.  For example, there are several units I’d love to have produced, but it wouldn’t be logical to do so, for whatever reason, so I accept that.

I hope everyone keeps their interest up and continues sharing their opinions with the rest of us.  Eventually we will get the finish line.

“Tall Paul”

By the way,

Here are a couple of web-site links that people can look at pics/drawings of the different Japanese aircraft(ships, tanks and others, too).

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/index.htm

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/Nippon/Japanese.htm

The first web-site has large size color drawings of many units.  It is a great place to compare the German Bf-109 and the Japanese Ki-61 “Tony”.  Enjoy!

“Tall Paul”

my picks for the Ki-84 Hayate are solely based on how much of an impact it had during the war, regarded as one of the Japanese elite, as for the early war Ki-43 Hayabusa is my pick, because i would really hate to see a zero from OOB a Zero from HBG and then another zero from FMG, i know FMG hasn’t released anything official but seeing that they redid the Bf109 for their German set, im about 95% sure they’ll use the most iconic Japanese fighter for their Japanese set.

BTW the tony does really look nice but the Ki100 II looks better =) plus it kinda looks like the Hayate so i could just pretend it is

I think both of you guys make very valid points.  One thing that bugs me a little is while many of the fighter types you have mentioned may have very distinct characteristics in real life, at the scale that we are talking about many of them will tend to look the same.  Granted, both HBG and FMG have surpassed anybody else up to this point in including minute details to their sculpts, but these are still really small pieces and in a lot of cases, I think it will be fairly hard to distinguish one model from another, especially when you are talking about planes made by the same country.

I also don’t think we need to rely on painting and/or decals to make our pieces stand out.  I know that some of you enjoy painting your pieces to make them more realistic looking and I applaud your dedication and patience in undertaking such endeavors.  I love looking at your pics of painted pieces.  I also think you are just a little bit crazy taking on such a task.  I couldn’t go through that myself, too many pieces and not enough patience.
The point I’m trying to make is that we should not need to rely on painting our pieces to make them unique.  They need to be MADE as such, so everyone can clearly tell them apart from other units, whether painted or in the simple molded colors.  This should be kept in mind when choosing the sculpts.