HBG US Set in Optional Colors



  • 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.



  • @Yavid:

    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…


  • Customizer

    @DrLarsen:

    …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.



  • @knp7765:

    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.



  • @DrLarsen:

    @knp7765:

    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.



  • @Yavid:

    Russia recieved 866 b-25s through lend-lease and built many more under licence.

    Well, now that’s a fair number, certainly nothing to sniff at!  So that makes at least half of the US Supplemental pieces worth using as “lend-lease flavor” in Russian colors.  Still not a high priority for me, but hey, if HBG can sell 'em, more power to 'em if they want to make 'em.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    If another color used i prefer a grey-brown. Then people can use them for Canadians and mitigate all the complaining about not having Canada represented.



  • I’m not going to complain if they aren’t done in Russian colors but it is something I would like to see done. The trucks, b-25s, p-40s, transport plane, and paratrooper are all useable but on the eastern front not needed. If the set had Shermans or Lees in it I would fight for Russian Red but as the set is it would be nice (I would buy) but not much more than that.



  • oh and I agree with IL about a color for Canada. And I’ll say again OOB French Blue please



  • soo no more forest green?


  • Customizer

    Forest green Canada please. Lets keep colors as standard as possible. And yes I said standard. FMG set the standard for Canada when they produced the Canadian dice which so many of us have. It would be completely lame to use my forest green dice with grey-brown troops.


  • Sponsor 2017 '13 '11 '10

    FMG Candian dice are not forest green.


  • Sponsor 2017 TripleA '11 '10

    @coachofmany:

    FMG Candian dice are not forest green.

    I don’t own a set, but from the pics on their site they look much more like OOB USA olive. Their USA dice look more like OOB Marine green.



  • so more olive green troops -_- forcing us Oob players to have to change our Americans to the darker green?



  • @Lunarwolf:

    so more olive green troops -_- forcing us Oob players to have to change our Americans to the darker green?

    On my screen the Canadian dice look about halfway between the oob OD and the FMG dice-green.  Which does make one wonder… Does anyone know what color (or is it colors?) that FMG is planning to use for the US pieces?  Or have they abandoned the project?  FMG has stayed rather mum of late on “future projects.”



  • @coachofmany:

    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 Green

    These seem the most popular.
    Next year we will make another neutral set to compliment the set we have already put out.

    Good list. Thanks, Coach.



  • @virtualpender:

    @coachofmany:

    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 Green

    These seem the most popular.
    Next year we will make another neutral set to compliment the set we have already put out.

    Good list. Thanks, Coach.

    Wait: what do you mean by Revised Green?  Is that the “Sea Foam Green” UK color?

    Oh, and is that Revised Green the same as the FMG Canadian Dice Green?


  • Sponsor 2017 TripleA '11 '10

    Revised Green = Sea Foam Green = Celery Green. Just depends what you call it.

    Not same as the FMG dice. See pic below.

    rev04_ukgr_bat.jpg



  • soo for sure no forest green for Canada right?


  • Customizer

    How about the darker tan uk color from AAE and AAP?  Anyone else interested in this?



  • @Bob_A_Mickelson:

    How about the darker tan uk color from AAE and AAP?  Anyone else interested in this?

    Too close in color to the current-standard UK tan.  Better to have a color with a clear difference than an ambiguous one…



  • @DrLarsen:

    @Bob_A_Mickelson:

    How about the darker tan uk color from AAE and AAP?�  Anyone else interested in this?

    Too close in color to the current-standard UK tan.  Better to have a color with a clear difference than an ambiguous one…

    agreed to close to current OOB color



  • I wouldn’t mind seeing a neutral set in the US olive drab color, mainly to use the destroyers, subs and transports alongside the original US set which had only battleships and escort carriers. This would be a good filler spot until we get another US set with the correct American ships.



  • I wouldn’t mind seeing a neutral set in the US olive drab color, mainly to use the destroyers, subs and transports alongside the original US set which had only battleships and escort carriers. This would be a good filler spot until we get another US set with the correct American ships.



  • So whats the final verdict??


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 156
  • 17
  • 17
  • 253
  • 1
  • 15
  • 11
  • 14
I Will Never Grow Up Games

42
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts