• I’ve been trying to figure out the Russian fighter sculpts in 42.2, Anniversary, and Global 1st and 2nd editions. According to different sources (G40.2 rulebook, HBG), the Yak-1, Yak-3, and MiG-3 have all been represented. Is this the case, or are they all Yak-3’s?


  • Yeah, I am pretty sure it is a Yak-3 or it could be a Yak-9, those two fighters were the most produced for USSR red airforce.

  • Moderator 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12

    I thought we had the Mig in one of the games. Ask Marc; he has a complete inventory. Perhaps, it was in 1941. My eyes are not good enough to differentiate any more and I blew my mind (memory, at least), a long time ago!


  • It’s possible, I personally don’t remember seeing a MiG-3 but then again, between the MiG and the Yak, they almost look alike.

  • Official Q&A

    It’s a MiG 3 in AAE40 2nd edition and a Yak 3 everywhere else, except for AA41 where it’s a US P-40.


  • @Krieghund:

    It’s a MiG 3 in AAE40 2nd edition and a Yak 3 everywhere else, except for AA41 where it’s a US P-40.

    Thanks! What about the ANZAC tac bomber in 2nd edition? The rulebook says it’s a Handley Page Hampden, but HBG says it’s a Bristol Beaufort.

  • Moderator 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12

    Thanks Krieghund .

  • Official Q&A

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    What about the ANZAC tac bomber in 2nd edition?

    It’s a Hampden TB Mk1.


  • Too bad we can’t have this conversation about French forces. I hate the fact they used USSR to save money.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    My unit identification charts over here…

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31982.0

    …indicate what I believe to be the correct name of the models and classes of the real-world weapons depicted by the sculpts.  They correspond mostly to what the rulebook tables say, but with corrections made to the errors in the rulebooks.  The rulebook errors are mainly of two different types.  First, there are cases (the Yak being one example, and the German naval transport being another) in which the rulebooks have been inconsistent in their terminology over the years.  Second, there are cases (the German naval transport “Hilfskreuzer” formar designation being an example) in which the rulebooks have sometimes been flat-out wrong.  In addition to these errors, there have been cases of sub-optimal (but not incorrect, strictly speaking) terminology.  One problem of this type usually involves ship classes: the sculpt will be named after a non-lead unit of a ship class, rather than the lead unit (example: “Ray” class rather than the correct “Gato” class for the US sub).  A somewhat different problem involves generic terminology rather than specific one; for instance, the “Baltic Timber Ship” designation rather than the correct Volgoles designation for the Russian naval transport.  And on the subject of ships, note that in some cases I’ve designated ships as being “types” rather then classes, based on what my recollection and/or my references sources indicate.


  • @CWO:

    My unit identification charts over here…

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31982.0

    …indicate what I believe to be the correct name of the models and classes of the real-world weapons depicted by the sculpts.  They correspond mostly to what the rulebook tables say, but with corrections made to the errors in the rulebooks.  The rulebook errors are mainly of two different types.  First, there are cases (the Yak being one example, and the German naval transport being another) in which the rulebooks have been inconsistent in their terminology over the years.  Second, there are cases (the German naval transport “Hilfskreuzer” formar designation being an example) in which the rulebooks have sometimes been flat-out wrong.  In addition to these errors, there have been cases of sub-optimal (but not incorrect, strictly speaking) terminology.  One problem of this type usually involves ship classes: the sculpt will be named after a non-lead unit of a ship class, rather than the lead unit (example: “Ray” class rather than the correct “Gato” class for the US sub).  A somewhat different problem involves generic terminology rather than specific one; for instance, the “Baltic Timber Ship” designation rather than the correct Volgoles designation for the Russian naval transport.  And on the subject of ships, note that in some cases I’ve designated ships as being “types” rather then classes, based on what my recollection and/or my references sources indicate.

    Thanks! So in fact the British and ANZAC County Class cruisers are different…the British cruiser seems to have a very small 3rd funnel in your chart, but Wikipedia pictures of the Kent group cruisers look like they have 3 equally tall funnels?

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    Thanks! So in fact the British and ANZAC County Class cruisers are different…the British cruiser seems to have a very small 3rd funnel in your chart, but Wikipedia pictures of the Kent group cruisers look like they have 3 equally tall funnels?

    From what I remember of the analysis I did when I put those charts together (which was a while ago), I looked into the fact that the UK and ANZAC versions of the cruiser sculpts had different stack configurations, and I tried to figure out how this could be explained based on the actual design / production history of the real ships.  The overall class was called the County class.  It consisted of three designs, which can be regarded either as classes in and of themselves, or as subclasses of the County class.  (There’s no hard and fast rule on where a subclass becomes a distinct class; it can be a matter of opinion.)  One of the three designs was the “Kent” design, which I treated as a group within the Country class.  The two Australian County-class cruisers were very similar to the Royal Navy ships of the Kent design, but were slightly different from them, so I designated them as a group to distinguish them from the Kent group.  But it would also be valid to use a different categorization – for instance by considering the Kent design to be a class, and by considering both the RN and Australian units to be part of that class.  As I said, it’s partly a matter of opinion.


  • @CWO:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    Thanks! So in fact the British and ANZAC County Class cruisers are different…the British cruiser seems to have a very small 3rd funnel in your chart, but Wikipedia pictures of the Kent group cruisers look like they have 3 equally tall funnels?

    From what I remember of the analysis I did when I put those charts together (which was a while ago), I looked into the fact that the UK and ANZAC versions of the cruiser sculpts had different stack configurations, and I tried to figure out how this could be explained based on the actual design / production history of the real ships.  The overall class was called the County class.  It consisted of three designs, which can be regarded either as classes in and of themselves, or as subclasses of the County class.  (There’s no hard and fast rule on where a subclass becomes a distinct class; it can be a matter of opinion.)  One of the three designs was the “Kent” design, which I treated as a group within the Country class.  The two Australian County-class cruisers were very similar to the Royal Navy ships of the Kent design, but were slightly different from them, so I designated them as a group to distinguish them from the Kent group.  But it would also be valid to use a different categorization – for instance by considering the Kent design to be a class, and by considering both the RN and Australian units to be part of that class.  As I said, it’s partly a matter of opinion.

    Yeah, I get that. My confusion is that when I looked at pictures of, say, HMS Kent vs HMAS Australia, they didn’t look as different as the A&A cruiser sculpts.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    Yeah, I get that. My confusion is that when I looked at pictures of, say, HMS Kent vs HMAS Australia, they didn’t look as different as the A&A cruiser sculpts.

    I’d say that the issue breaks down into two components.  On the one hand, the A&A sculpts may not be all that accurate.  They’re very small scale, and by necessity they’re simplified and lacking in detail.  But even allowing for that factor, some of them could have been designed a bit better – like the Yamato sculpt, whose pointy stern is a poor rendering of the actual ship’s stern, which was scalloped.  On the other hand – and in fairness to the sculpts – it has to be remembered that major warships of that era are hard to pin down in terms of their precise appearance.  Even ships which are nominally part of the same class sometimes feature differences.  The lead ship of the Iowa class, for example, was distinguished from her sisters by the shape of her bridge structure.  Furthermore, it was common for WWII ships to be modified to various degrees during their careers; the modifications could be minor tweaks, major overhauls, or even complete rebuilds.  And if I remember correctly, the Kent-design ships did have their funnels modified at some point to correct a flaw in their original configuration.


  • In ANZAC defense, most of there ships during the start of WWII were hand me downs of WWI era UK and US ships sold or given to them.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Caesar:

    In ANZAC defense, most of there ships during the start of WWII were hand me downs of WWI era UK and US ships sold or given to them.

    And on a related point, the WotC folks who chose the models and classes of equipment (land, air and sea) to assign to ANZAC in Pacific 1940.2 were unavoidably hampered by the fact that Australia and New Zealand didn’t produce domestically the full range of units required by the game.  Much of ANZAC’s equipment in the game is actually foreign in origin – like the Bofors 40mm AAA auto-cannon, which is of Swedish manufacture.  (It was used by many Allied nations, so its use by ANZAC is perfectly credible.  The version I’m most familiar with is the naval version, which was carried by many US battleships and cruisers.  I once got the opportunity to operate one – without the ammunition, of course – at a naval museum.)


  • Unfortunately, some nations (mostly allies) rely on version of units they couldn’t have access to or they go at great lengths to give it under POSSIBLE. Example is how ANZAC, France, and USSR use UK aircraft carriers even though these factions had no will to build carriers, most of them couldn’t afford it. OR how ANZAC uses the AC1 Sentinel even though all of there tanks were UK or Lend Lease US and they never once deployed the AC1.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yes, it’s unfortunate that some A&A powers have foreign equipment sculpts for which domestic equivalents did genuinely exist in WWII, especially if those powers never used foreign counterparts alongside their own domestic products.  The situation has been getting better over the years, as more and more domestic sculpts have been introduced, but there are still gaps (France being the biggest gap of all, the only power whose non-infantry sculpts are 100% foreign).


  • It’s clear whoever made that call for France did it for two reasons; to save money the obviously one. Two, France for the most part is the most useless nation so how offend do you get a chance to deploy them in great numbers.


  • @Caesar:

    Unfortunately, some nations (mostly allies) rely on version of units they couldn’t have access to or they go at great lengths to give it under POSSIBLE. Example is how ANZAC, France, and USSR use UK aircraft carriers even though these factions had no will to build carriers, most of them couldn’t afford it. OR how ANZAC uses the AC1 Sentinel even though all of there tanks were UK or Lend Lease US and they never once deployed the AC1.

    Well, the new ANZAC carrier is the Majestic class, and Australia did in fact operate two of them, though it was after the war.


  • Well the Majestic is a Collosus carrier on crack which originate from UK.

  • 2022 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    A unique destroyer and fighter sculpt for France would be nice since those are typically the only two units that survive after the first turn besides infantry. What I don’t get is why they used USSR sculpts as a base. In the event France is liberated and becomes relevant late-game, it’s perfectly logical they’d use UK and US equipment.


  • @General:

    A unique destroyer and fighter sculpt for France would be nice since those are typically the only two units that survive after the first turn besides infantry. What I don’t get is why they used USSR sculpts as a base. In the event France is liberated and becomes relevant late-game, it’s perfectly logical they’d use UK and US equipment.

    I think USSR was specifically used because of how most of the time, USSR is just going to produce cheaper units due to them being unable to launch invasions until late game. It is clear they wanted to save money by being cheap with France.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @General:

    What I don’t get is why they used USSR sculpts as a base.

    The four- five- and six-player Global 1940 dispositions for Global 1940 all assign the USSR and France to the same player, so that’s probably the reason: as a visual reflection of those pairings, illogical though it may be from a real-world equipment viewpoint.

  • 2022 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    That’s another thing, how much fun can it be playing as two countries that get squashed and cornered/squashed by Germany? I would pair France with UK since the latter goes last among the Big Three Allies.

Suggested Topics

  • 12
  • 17
  • 15
  • 23
  • 15
  • 12
  • 60
  • 23
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

62
Online

16.1k
Users

37.7k
Topics

1.6m
Posts