FMG, HBG, OOB Pieces Comparison

@LHoffman:

Let us use your example of Germany or Italy attacking Turkey. They would have to control the land mass of Turkey in order to navigate the Dardanelles. To do so, The Axis will have to fight off at least 7 infantry, likely some artillery and maybe one or two small ships. That is just to be able to make an invasion in the Black Sea. That burns one turn which will give the USSR plenty of time to move forces in for defense or counter-attack. Regardless of how well the battle for Turkey goes, it would almost certainly be a one time attack. Even in Global, the Axis simply do not have the resources or leeway to make such a move more than once (if that).

…

That said, I still don’t see much application for extra Neutral units because historically they had next to nothing to fight a modern war with. Every country has manpower and some semblance of an army, which is why Infantry activation is a simple, accurate and universal medium. Unless I am mistaken, Turkey had one of, if not the, largest armed forces of any Neutral nation in WWII. Even then Turkey had a few subs, a couple destroyers and a cruiser. The post on this forum outlines their naval forces, calling them “insignificant”. Which I would venture to say includes armor and aircraft as well.

I will clarify and modify what I was trying to say. You could make it so that simply passing through the Turkish strait is seen an act of war. You don’t have to control Turkey itself in order to pass, but it IS seen as an act of war on a strict neutral. You could then place a cruiser or sub or something like that in the black sea to signify their small navy. With this method, it would be possible to move into the Black Sea and drop a small army behind enemy lines, taking a Russian territory (or two, or three).

It may be true that Neutral navies were rather insignificant, but I would point out that that forum also mentions that Turkey has 37 Artillery regiments, as opposed to 66 infantry (95 including cavalry). So while maybe tanks, planes, and ships aren’t that great, artillery are still significant, yes?

Touche, Hoffman. I honestly don’t have anything left to argue (Turkish-Strait-related), although the idea of non-infantry neutral units still does appeal to me. And either way, I agree that it is nice to have the option open to invade neutrals is one so chooses. And if nothing else, those lovely infantry units will still make a nice replacement for the silhouettes on the board.

A little off topic methinks… but a good way to get generic neutral/HR pieces is to find an old used copy of the game “Attack!” and/or it’s expansions. I don’t care for the game but it’s chaulk full of parts all close in scale to A&A and would make great pieces for neutrals or whatever you come up with. The old Table Tactics pieces were really nice until they stopped making them, but if you can find them they’re pretty damn cool too.

I just picked up a whole bunch of pieces from HBG. Most were aircraft and ships. I bought the OD green for army units. and Dark Green for Marines. I’ll be using it in 1942.1. A suggestion for the LVT is to use it as a “Marine Tank” the HR stats will be the same as a regular tank just Marines for flavor. As for the Avenger It will be used as a fighter. IIRC I bought just a couple of the B-25s which will have same stats as a fighter in my version but two will be placed on carrier in tribute to the Doolittle Raid. I also bought extra Tiger tanks, escort carriers, Warhawks, Mustangs, Falschirmjagers, and a personal favorite…HE-111s

@LHoffman:

Here are all aircraft types together.

From left to right back row:   P-38, Hellcat, HBG Corsair, HBG Fw-190, Bf-109.

Middle row:   HBG P-51, OOB Zero, HBG Avenger, OOB Avenger, HBG P-40.

Front:   HBG B-25 Mitchell medium bomber, OOB B-17.

An overall comparison… The B-25s are nice. The HBG Avenger is much more detailed than the OOB piece, complete with ball turret and panes of glass in the cockpit canopy. It is very barely smaller than the OOB Avenger, but that is not a bad thing; more contrast between the tactical bomber and the strategic bombers, plus it might fit on the carrier more easily.

Second picture is a different shot. The only addition being the middle plane in the back row: HBG C-46 Commando Transport plane.

Actually the OOB dive bomber is a Dauntless not an Avenger.

Yep you’re right. I can tell the difference in real-life or drawings on a larger size pic. At this scale WOTC didn’t exactly put a lot of detail in theirs. I think the HBG is much better looking. You almost can’t see the ball turret on the OOB WOTC. I just got AAP40.1 in august and could’ve sworn they have US tac bomber listed as a Dauntless in the rulebook, but hey I’ve only looked at it twice just to get it punched and bagged for play later.

BTW I just got my Avengers today along with my Corsairs, Warhawks and Mustangs. I’m alittle bit down about my Warhawks and Mustangs though. Thier molding isn’t the best and they seem a bit on the frail side. These will definately need paint and glaze at a minimum to give them some substance. Same with FW190, although light seems to be molded better

The 41 planes look a lot better IMO. The HBG FW190 isn’t that bad but it doesn’t feel nearly as solid as the OOB. I may just paint the FW190 solid gray or black, stain and seal them jut to give them some weight.

I will be converting my HBG FW190s into Ki43s as the OOB FW190s are perfectly fine to me and scale well with the other pieces.
Like LHoffman, I prefer to use OOB units when possible since I already have the pieces. I’m thinking also of using the B25s as
USAAF Tac bombers by converting them into A20 Havocs since the land forces didn’t use Navy Planes.

Wil & Lucas,

@sgtwiltan:

I will be converting my HBG FW190s into Ki43s as the OOB FW190s are perfectly fine to me and scale well with the other pieces.
Like LHoffman, I prefer to use OOB units when possible since I already have the pieces. I’m thinking also of using the B25s as
USAAF Tac bombers by converting them into A20 Havocs since the land forces didn’t use Navy Planes.

––You both make some valid, worthwhile points regarding unit sizes,…very logical.
----As I also already have both OOB & HBG FW-190s and P-40s, modifying some
HBG FW-190s into Ki-43s seems very interesting to me. :-D
––And as far as A-20s, I had inquired of HBG about their making some when they were planning their Japanese and American Naval Supplements a year or so ago. Too bad the sets were post-poned.
––I had originally intended to introduce a few new unit types, one type being
“Attack Aircraft” (B-25, A-20, etc.), another being “Fighter-Bombers” (P-47, F-4U, etc.) as well as some others. By moving to a 12-sidied die we have enough ‘wiggle room’ to make them viable.
––I hadn’t mentioned any of these projects other than the B-25 “Commerce Destroyer” low-level, parafragging, straffers as we already have soo many units in the que for the near future.
----Wil, I’m truly happy that you’re investigating the ‘possibilities’ of these projects. And with your talents for modification, and Lucas’s painting talent, I’m certain anything that the “WARMACHINE Team” turns out will be outstanding!

“Tall Paul”

@LHoffman:

This is a Sherman from Anniversary Ed. and the HBG Sherman Firefly from the US Marines set. While you can see it is a bit shorter than the OOB piece, it is much more detailed and Sherman “looking”. Can’t say that this is much of a contest. If HBG starts selling these individually (at the time of purchase they do not) I will have to buy a couple more.

Um not sure how to bring this up but the HBG Sherman is a flame throwing tank, It was called Sherman Zippo. The Sherman Firefly was a British Sherman with a 17-pounder anti-tank main gun instead of the stock American gun

It’s ironic that the flamethrower version of the Sherman was called the Zippo (the name of a popular lighter) because the standard Sherman – whose poorly designed ammunition storage often led it to catch fire when hit – was nicknamed the Ronson (after another popular lighter whose manufacturers claimed that it would “always light the first time”).

Guys,

––Not to ‘nit-pic’, and I hate to disagree, but IMHO the OOB tac-bomber in the above posts and drawings is
definately an SBD Dauntless. Just look at the;
1.) curved wintips (on the Dauntless)
2.) lack of ball turret machinegun (on the Dauntless)
3.) the somewhat narrow fuselage (on the Dauntless).
––The TBD Avenger had a TALL, FAT fuselage that had the radio operater/belly gunner INSIDE the fuselage. The main reason it was nick-named the “Turkey”.

“Tall Paul”