Flames of War General /fowg/: Disregard the constabulary, post

Mechanized HQ
M16 Team 1
M113 1
1 point

2x Mech Platoon
M249 team 4
Dragon team 4
M113 4
14 points

Mortar Platoon
M106 6
6 points

4x Anti-Tank Platoon
M901 2
12 points

Tank Platoon
Abrams 4
32 points

Field Artillery Battery
M109 6
Laser Projectiles 6
20 points

Fire Support Team
M981 1
1 point

AA Platoon
M163 4
6 points

Helicopter Platoon
Cobra 2
7 points

99 points
57 stands/models


Opinions?

From last thread:

> So is the Polish 1st Armored Division digital list any good? I'm looking at the Cromwell Armored Recon varient of the list and it looks utterly fantastic.

FYI Polish Cromwells took first place at GenCon, 1550 Pts Late War. They're decent, and the Fearless motivation certainly helps when you have 3-tank platoons.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5283

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/all_images/EventReports/GenCon2016-14.jpg

>>48919687
>http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5283
Huh, a Comet list came third. How bout that.

File: 1455843979457.png (707KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 1162x850px

>>48919687
>The Cromwell list's showing

BUENO

>>48919687
Dunno why the HQ CS Cromwell...I'd be aiming for some 25-pounders by dropping that and the AA.

>>48919687
>http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5283
"4-3 to a hero guards tankovy" Man, he must've fucked up or gotten really unlucky.

>>48920193
or maybe the Tanko player knew what was up and was trying new avenues.
Hero Tanko sucks, but then again, people who have bent that list around and made it work haven't posted here

>>48919756
And with two Recce options, no artillery, no smoke, and all platoons at 3 vehicles. I have no idea how that guy managed to get so much out of that list.

>>48920193
Hero T-34/85 will own Cromwells pretty well.

>>48920641
Don't forget his Cromwells counted as Recce.

>>48920641
This is a tournament where Romania won MW, I'll accept anything at this point.

>>48920641
Why is having only 3 a bad thing? That frees up points for more options, surely? I thought one of the complaints was that Comets are too expensive and limiting options.

>>48920711
No Croms in the Comet list, which is what I was talking about.

>>48920753
Odd number platoons are bad, generally. 3 means you lose two and you're taking a platoon morale, while 4 would mean you need to lose 3 for platoon morale. It's not as bad as an odd platoon count, but it's still not optimal.

How viable is a Canadian Armoured Recce Squadron from Market Garden?

>>48920193
You're leaving out the fact that the Hero Tankovy player came in 7th out of 26.

And was in third place out of only the Sovieet players.

Ahead of someone playing regular Tankovy who came in 13th overall.

Still not saying it's an awesome list, but clearly the guy playing Hero Tankovy at this specific tournament was able to make it work for him.

>>48920909
The CAR is OK,but much better as 1-2 support platoons in the Rifle Company.

>>48919564
>TY US Mech list

Seems decent. You'll want to de the defender with a list like that.

ITVs are damn-near useless if you have to attack, but are *excellent* in defense if you can give them good lines of sight.

The infantry will be good at holding the objectives, while the Abrams can be your mobile emergency response team. Going where the situation calls for it.

I like it.

As for the artillery, I might have taken minelets or bomb lets over laser-guided munitions, but I think it'll work well.

>>48920909
They're excellent. You should just field them as "Canadian Rifle Company", so that you can Night Attack when you want to (and defend when you would prefer that). Especially since 2 Rifle Platoons are far from bad support options for CAR.

>>48921478
I'm really happy that Canadian Armoured Recce shortens to CAR.

>>48921151
>>48921478
Well I guess I could split the difference and buy enough tanks for a self-contained company and then a Rifle Company in its own right so I can choose between the two.

Would I be correct that the same principle applies to the 11th Armoured List?

>>48921683
11th Armoured armoured recce is cromwells.

>>48921724
I meant, if I wanted to build a 11th Armoured Sherman list (not recon), would the advice also be to just take them as support for an infantry company?

>>48921807
The reasons why CAR works wonders as support for an Infantry Company is
1) the tanks excel at sneaking into a good firing position, since they'll be GtG as long as you're in cover, giving you that extra bit of breathing space before opening fire with a lethal round.
2) Night Attack is "good", especially when combined with the above (who dares to open fire on your advancing infantry if they know 8 sneaky shermans are just waiting).
3) The Fireflies being able to use Eyes and Ears when facing infantry (or, hell, just being able to have 50cals) means they're not quite as useless when the cheeky bugger on the other side of the table decides to go trackless.
4) Advancing with your infantry in tanks (well, transports with medium tank armour) means the enemy will be hard pressed between firing at them, or firing at the (even harder to hit) real tanks. Whatever he does, it's probably bad.

None of these things really apply for the 11th (since their Lorried Rifles are mechanized, they can't Night Attack)

>>48921948
Okay, cool, thanks for the breakdown!

>>48921807
11th Armored Rifles are rated Mechanised: this mean no Night Attack, however, unlike an Infantry company, it also means you can deploy 2x Fully Armoured platoons on-table when defending.

I've done this with two Sherman platoons both with double Fireflies (usually + Rifles & 25-pounders), so in that sense it is an advantage. A regular Rifle Company would need Sherman + M10s or 6-pounder to have the same on-table AT support...they're different lists and the Mech plays a little differently.

Losing Night Attack is a disadvantage though, if you like playing that way. I like having AT15 Fireflies in daylight. The CAR can get similar Sherman platoons, but with Cautious Movement and (optional) Wide Tracks (duckbills), they can make better use of night which make them more suited to it.

Building options for both the 11th Armoured tank and Lorried Rifle makes sense, since they share many platoons and just by changing the HQ and a platoon or two you can play a different force.

File: netlisting the Soviet HTB.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48920193
>>48920251
>>48920666
>>48920753
>>48921065
maybe he tried something like this

>>48923709
>9 trained tanks
>no at more than 12
>no smoke
>no recce
The recipe to get fucked by any remotely competitive list with at least a couple at threats

Is there a British list that lets you take more than one platoon of Achilles?

>>48923797
And yet it some variation of Hero Tankovy came in 7th at the Gen Con Late War tournament at 1550 points.

Ahead of normal Tankovy.

Looking at the standings I'd imagine there weren't too many things that AT 12 couldn't handle. Probably only the Panzer Kampfgruppe, and the 512. Schwere Panzerjägerkompanie had anything that AT 12 couldn't punch through.

1) Polish Szwadron Rozpozanawczy Dywuzji
2) German Panzerspähkompanie
3) British Armoured Squadron
4) German Panzer Kampfgruppe (Trained)
5) Soviet Hero Strelkovy Polk (Red Army)
6) Soviet Strelkovy Batalon
7) ***Soviet Hero Tankovy***
8) German Hermann Goring StuG Batterie
9) Finnish Jääkärikompanie
10) British Parachute Company
11) Polish Szwadron Pancerny
12) German 512. Schwere Panzerjägerkompanie
13) ***Soviet Tankovy Batalon (Red Army)***

>>48923709

I like the idea of maximizing your heavy mortar support. Those things are great for the price and having both the 160 mm and 120 mm let you optimize your fire and pin down more units. Still not sure that you have enough tanks to last, but the escorts and tank killer team will help cover the lack of numbers for the tanks.

>>48923709
>>48925492
Oh wow. I didn't get why people kept saying "Get the hero mortars" before, but now that I've actually looked at their stats I can't understand why you WOULDN'T grab as many of those as you can. Cheap hits-as-vet +2 and +3 FP templates...

>>48923797
nigger no soviet list gets real smoke!

>bullshit argument

File: 1412782349486.jpg (29KB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 448x252px

>>48926111
>>48925492

File: MG Air 1500.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Thoughts on this list? Considering getting PSC's paras, and that Medium Artillery Support is so damn tempting.

>>48927361
Yes, that is one of the primary reasons why a Trained tank army with at most 12 medium tanks, tends to suck.

>>48926111
Hero Heavy Mortars are one of the only things worth fielding a Hero list for. And luckily, you don't have to run one of the shitty tank lists to take them.

>>48924771
Great, congrats to the plucky bastard who lost out to 5 infantry lists and British armored. What did the lists actually look like? I ask that, because he could easily have taken 8 T-34-76s with bedsprings and escorts, loaded the rest up with mortars and infantry, and ran it like a Tank-level infantry force.

>>48929201
I know a guy at my FLGS that basically runs that exact list, and he does fairly well with it. When we did a Market Garden Firestorm Campaign, he ran that list and kicked a decent amount of ass.

>>48929201
I think it looks about as good as a FV British infantry list can possibly look at 1500pts.

>>48923870
Several British Motor Companies can get two platoons.

>>48932015
But then you have to deal with playing a motor company.

>>48929359
They don't tell us his list. Just the lists for the top 3.

All we know is Hero Tankovy at 1550 points, and that he played against one of the top 3 guys.

I'm still not sitting here saying it's the best list ever. Obviously it's not.

But this is at least some second-hand anecdotal evidence that it can work well. 7th place out of 26 isn't bad. It's not top 5, but it still goes against the prevailing opinion that Hero Tankovy is complete and utter shit. Which seems to be the refrain every time it's mentioned here.

This player made it work. How? I don't know. But if the list was complete shit like people keep insisting that it is, how did this player make the top 25% - 30% in that tournament? You'd expect him to be in the **bottom** 25% if the list is complete shit.

>>48932779
If he's good, it's because he probably would've won with a decent list.

If he's lucky, then that'll sometimes happen in any game with dice.

Either way, hero tankovy is a bad list.

>>48932790
>If he's a good player it's the list's fault he didn't finish higher

>If he was just lucky that could happen with any list

Sure. Fine.

But you seem dead set on denying the evidence that we have here, however anecdotal, that someone playing Hero Tankovy at a tournament did well with it.

Maybe this guy finally cracked the code. Maybe he figured out what makes Hero Tankovy tick.

Or it could just be pure dumb luck.

Or a high-skill player purposely taking a sub-par list just for laughs.

But it's still a potential bucking of the trend. And I'm curious to find out what the situation actually is.

>>48933019
Soviet Whinger, dude, don't bother. They're like two white-roomers had a retarded hate child.

>>48933019
My money is on one of the latter two.

Hero tankovy has, as a plus side, the fact it's core tanks are pretty good by any reasonable measure; AT 12 and FA 7 is a fair set of stats, and bedsprings help cover their (already respectable) sides. However, you can't really assault with them, so they're pretty close to auto-lose against LW infantry lists, and their support is lacking. They also have no real protective measures, which is a structural failing of most soviet lists, but much easier to stomach when you can take eight casualties and still have more than half your tanks on the board, rather than take eight casualties and be on a company morale check (on the off chance your one CO is still alive).

I tell a lie; there is a chance he fought suboptimal lists. Armoured cars or infantry that don't come with billions of AT assets might have been reasonably fair matchups.

>>48933432
>le maymay soviet whiner

>>48933580
Also, on a re-read of the lists that did place highly, two of the three don't have any kind of artillery or infantry support, so it looks like kind of a weird meta in general. If nobody's using smoke and everyone's just facetanking the other side's gun lines then hero tankovy isn't at as much of a disadvantage.

>>48933580
>he probably just got to that position because every game he had was against a terrible opponent.
Yeah, that's how you get to the top 10.

>>48933605

Honestly, I'd be questioning the apparent American fixation with smoke and petite manoeuvres.

>>48933653
Suboptimal -lists-. A heavy tank company tends to suck but someone who's gone all-in on infantry with no AT will get facerolled by them. Like I say, armoured cars could have trouble, given side 5 is generally enough to give serious headaches to people reliant on light, speedy flanking, and infantry with one PIAT or something might fluff on the bedsprings and get punched to death by tank escorts. If he got lucky and nobody had a panzerfaust/bazooka hell infantry list, then you can assault, but hero tankovy isn't generally that great at assaulting because the assumption of LW infantry is that they're stationary death-traps.

>>48933722
>gone all-in on infantry with no AT
That seems...implausible.

Quite a lot of people, including the recent WWPD podcast, mention that BMPs are a really nasty list because the BMPs can spam missiles and allow the infantry to run into assault range unmolested. My question is, what exactly are they meant to do there? Chobham gives side 16 to HEAT weapons, a couple of guys hitting on sixes, and bailing on a 1 save + 4+ firepower doesn't seem like it's actually going to do that much.

>>48934405
If he can bail you with his horde of RPGs in the assault, you can't fall back, and are destroyed. Also, if he can force a morale check, 50/50 shot of you going away. Morale is the achilles' heel of American armor.

>>48934548
Yeah, but bailing seems pretty remote when you hit on a 6 and are at risk of bail on a 1. Every attacking stand is only 1/72 of a bail. If all of your stands are in contact you statistically need 8 rounds of combat for 1 bail.

>>48932779
Sure. Heavy Tank lists can (and have) pulled the occasional tournament upset. I've seen medium-tank infested metas suddenly grind to a halt against the bubble-wrapped Jagdtigers with belt-fed loading mechanisms, the LW King Tigger party, or the best one ever: IS-2s.

The important thing to remember is that a bad list isn't suddenly redeemed because someone in a tournament did well with it. But more importantly, it speaks volumes about that guy's list build and ability as a player to take an objectively bad list that features little to no forgiveness, and pull a suprising 7th place out of it.

>>48933019
As am I. I've ran the Hero Tankovy, and the list feels like you're hamstrung. Ambushes become hyper-lethal to your entire game, recce becomes not enough to go around (what I wouldb't have given for cars and spetsnaz...), you can't trade fire worth shit against Veterans in concealment, and your suppirt options are rubbish. You can make Hero Motostrelk work effectively, and Hero Strelk is really just Udarny+. But the tankovy, in my personal experience, is like playing a Trained American/British/German medium tank force, with none of the national rules or support choices.

>>48934949
Wait, hero tankovy doesn't get armoured cars or spetsnaz?

...What other recce is there on the soviet side?

>>48934986
No, they do. But like pretty much every not-Ravedki Soviet list, they take up the same slot (and often compete with the maligned Decoy Tanks). This means you get 1 platoon of Spetsnaz, -OR- 1 platoon of cars (for Hero, it is literally 3 trained armored cars).

With your small tank sizes, and how easily you're hit as trained, I would have loved if the ACs and Spetsnaz were separate on the support oprtions. It's difficult to protect yourself from ambushing PaKs or StuGs from only one angle.

By the way, Breakthrough Assault has a nice article going the changes to the Battle of the Bulge compilation book. I wasn't aware of it before, but towed tank destroyers are no longer stupidly good.

http://www.breakthroughassault.co.uk/2016/08/old-blood-guts-preview-battle-bulge-american-lists.html

>>48924771
Yes that's why i said that it would get fucked by competitive lists, as long as the tournament had so many for fun and historical list he could win with a good amount of skill and some luck. Competitive lists in the LW meta are american tank and mech companies from bg&g or bridge at remagen, panther spam from bg&g or desperate measures, always defend sits krieg lists of various nature and the sporadic soviet infantry spam or mech brigade. Usually any consolidated competitive scenes has at least 1/3 of the participants to tourneys running any of the above.

>>48935536

Don't forget American arty park.

>>48924771
I'm amazed the Jaakari came that high.What're they feeding them?

>>48935564
Oh right, well i guess you can put it in with the sits krieg lists

>>48935536
Worth noting is the fact that Patton will no longer be providing spearhead or 3+ motivation to everyone that sees him, in American armored companies. And Towed Tank Destroyers are no longer anything beyond a gun team (price reduced considerabbly).

>>48935616
Well there's always Abrams that gives spearhead and aa iirc

File: crusader.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

I want to put up a brit cruiser force for EW, should i go the crusader route wich is a lot more expensive and i get less tanks while getting a better armor or...

>>48935725
... go the cruiser IV route wich gives me more tonks and an even number of platoons but worse armor?

>>48935702
True. But Patton was the bigger problem. Now if you want Spearhead and AA, you're taking the (previously unpopular) Abrams. And you're not getting decloaking towed tank destroyers out of the bargain.

File: bar.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48935740
fug forgot to post the list

>>48935572

Pretty much anything. They're a decent list, AT platoon sizes notwithstanding.

Anyone here played TANKS?

I tried a 100pt game with the starter plus initial expansions that were available at our local store. That was one of each, so it was a Pershing, an M4A3 (76), and 2x M4A3 (75), against a Jagdpanther, Panther, Pz. IV, and StuG III. No upgrades. The Americans won. Their national rule reduces the penalty to hit when they move, so they're always moving and that makes it harder for their opponents to hit them. That hurt - the Panzer IV and Stug III (attack value 4) didn't accomplish anything.

Makes me wonder if the tanks with attack 4 are worth taking at all - especially because I'd like to make a British list with at least a couple Cromwells because I like how they look. But four attack dice against a Pershing that's moved...

>>48937668
You still have to see what a fat super pershing can do, that thing has 4 defense dice at all times (moving 1), has something like 7 attack dice and almost always fires first

>>48938342
Here's the build btw:
Super Pershing
-War Daddy Pool
-Clarence Mason
-Jailbird Boggs
-John Irwin
-Camo Net
You should have enough points left over to take a sherman 75 with a couple cheap upgrades, also you could use Baby Rihards instead of Mason if you like his extra mobility over the extra defense

File: happening.gif (602KB, 320x213px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 320x213px

http://store.aetherworks.com.au/product_info.php?cPath=173_301_1981&products_id=32031&osCsid=dfd2c16e2003074507b640b5d200d321

New german list incoming!

>>48939686

Noooo! I just finished paying for my Aufklärung list.

Seriously though, I wonder what could possibly be inside.

>>48939754
FoW forum is thinking Panzergrenadiere in M113s.

But with a price tag of 18.50 I would expect a bit more than this.

>>48939686
>German pamphlet briefing
>Panzertruppen

Google is being supremely unhelpful as to what that might mean.

The results are almost all about the WWII Panzertruppen.

Perhaps its a non-Aufklarungs Leopard 1 list?

>>48940910
A mixed tank list would be pretty nice. It would be cool to bring 2 platoons of leopard 2s and 2 platoons of Leopard 1s.

>>48940910
>>48941299

In the same force I mean. I am a little hesitant to mix 2 forces (at 100 ponts) at the moment due to morale issues.

>>48940910
Panzertruppen is just a broad name for all units using tanks.

>M113's with Leo 2's and Leo 1's

My dick if that's the case.

The TANKS forum is starting to get a lot of posts from people who haven’t been able to find the game in stock and are giving up on getting started – and giving up on GF9/BF too.

The same mistake yet again.

>>48942695
They always underestimate demand. Always.

Then again, they tend to produce as much as they believe they can without taking a loss if it doesn't sell.

>>48943971

My LGS got a VC local forces blister a few days back that it had ordered and paid for in January.

>>48937668

keep in mind defense dice cap at 6. and yes, Pershing are fucking made of Win. so are IS-2's.

>>48938544
why are you bringing camo net on a US tank? YOU HAVE TO KEEP MOVING, and you will never get that 1 defense die.

bring something lovely instead, like a supercharger or hyper-ammo.

i am trying to find a great video to link to.

i just found this instead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOEE1esGxNA

>>48944076
I'm now on a month's wait for some infantry I ordered.

>>48948399
US infantry for Team Yankee was hard for me to find for a while.

When it finally became available on War Store I picked it up instantly before it could sell out again.

But other than that, most of the TY or FoW stuff I order from my FLGS comes in within a week or two.

Unless it's something that is sold out everywhere.

>>48950629
Maybe it's just a perk of living in a commonwealth country, but my shit was here in five-seven working days via Royal Mail.

>>48950699
Direct from Battlefront?

Well, you do live in the same country.

>>48944334
With camo net you can just tay still and get that defense die anyway while also getting the reroll from staying still

>>48950814
Except that their shipping comes from Britain mate. Goddamn Nottingham.

>>48950868
Home of the Evil Empire.

Why does a Kiwi company have their production in Malaysia, and their shipping in England?

File: 1454175893792.jpg (131KB, 588x751px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 588x751px

>>48951133
deals with Satan

>>48951133
Well it's probably a lot cheaper to ship stuff out via the Royal Mail to commonwealth countries, shorter distance to the EU...

>>48951558
Or Battlefront are just fucking nutjobs.

>>48951133
It was the only way to stop the Dark Lord Mike Haught from moving everything to the US; they had to scatter their assets to the four corners of the globe, in the hopes of buying time for a Hero to come and defeat the Dark Lord and his American Bias.


Cyka blyat.

>>48951719
>Or Battlefront are just fucking nutjobs.
I have to assume there's some hellaciously good tax benefits with how they're doing things.

Beyond that, I assume they don't want to move their people and offices, Malaysia does cheap figures, and it's easier to distribute them from the UK than from Malaysia or sending them to NZ. Maybe the shipping between the UK and Malaysia is really cheap, and the distribution FROM the UK is really good.

Hello mates, I have a Stalingrad themed tournament this Sunday, all the tables will be filled with lots of buildings and in the third round we will play with snow rules which fuck up the movement of tanks.....so this is my list for the day:
Soviet Strelkovy (Guards)


Compulsory Strelkovy Batalion HQ (Guards) (p.217) - CinC Rifle, 2iC Rifle, Battalion Komissar (35 pts)
- 4x PTRD anti-tank rifle (50 pts)
- 5x Pioneer Rifle, Supply wagon (115 pts)

Compulsory Strelkovy Company (Guards) (p.218) - Command SMG, 27x Rifle (405 pts)
- Komissar (5 pts)
- 2x Maksim HMG (50 pts)
- Light mortar (20 pts)
- 9x Replace Rifle/MG with SMG (0 pts)

Compulsory Strelkovy Company (Guards) (p.218) - Command SMG, 18x Rifle (275 pts)
- Komissar (5 pts)
- Maksim HMG (25 pts)

Strelkovy Mortar Company (Guards) (p.219) - Command Rifle, 6x 82-BM-41 mortar (95 pts)

Strelkovy Anti-tank Company (Guards) (p.220) - Command Rifle, 4x 45mm obr 1942 gun (120 pts)

Strelkovy Heavy Mortar Company (Guards) (p.221) - Command Rifle, 4x 120-PM-38 mortar (100 pts)

Strelkovy Artillery Battalion (Guards) (p.224) - Command Rifle, Staff, 8x 76mm ZIS-3 gun field gun, 4x 122mm obr 1938 howitzer (410 pts)
- Komissar (5 pts)
- Observer Rifle (15 pts)
- 2x PTRD anti-tank rifle (20 pts)
1750 Points, 6 Platoons

>>48952724
The 45mm guns are likely to be a bit hit or miss, but other than that, it looks solid. Some tanks might help a bit, though. KV-8s, or OT-34s would work really well. Those ZIS-3 guns in the artillery platoon don't count for much in bombardment, either.

>>48952821
I was thinking about the KV 8s but they suck up a lot of points, but getting rid of the heavy mortars and the 122 howitzers I can do it, the Zis 3 are not for bombarding, they are to give pace with the advancing infantry and give close support, mortars are they biggest enemy but...

>>48952724
I would personally scrap the 82mm mortars, and instead get a scout platoon. But that is partly a matter of taste, and other than that, the list looks good if you want to go threadless

>>48952974
I was thinking about it, a 6 FV teams (including Kommisar) would be nice to have in a house to house fight.

But on the pther side, the 45mm cannons, the 82mm mortars and the Zis 3 are on the list to use and abuse of the Volley Fire...

>>48953011
Volley fire is much more effective when you hit the bastards on 5+, instead of 6

>>48952724
Do note that you must have Rifle/MG teams to replace them with SMG teams. Currently as written, you only have Rifle teams

>>48952724
It's going to be interesting cramming 60+ stands of strelkovy with an artillery batallion and all the other support on an urban table.

>>48951727
To be fair, being based anywhere in the world other than New Zealand would probably help them out tremendously.

Being in the middle of the South Pacific cant make things easy for dealing with the rest of the world. The distances involved with shipping and the time differences involved in any real-time communication with the US or Europe must be real pains in the asses for them.

>>48952891

If you're planning on using them for close support, then the 45s are going to just as good a job. They're both pretty hit or miss against armour either way. What about OT-34s? If anything stays it should be the 122s, they actually have an alright bombardment stat line.

>>48953011
Infiltrate is also incredible.

It's a bit hard to keep track of all the books - can you play as the Polish armoured units during Overlord, like at Falaise, or are the only western front Polish stuff the airborne things from Market Garden?

>>48954126
Yes, there should be Polish lists in Overlord, but double check that. I know there's some in Road to Rome.

>>48954157

Okay, I'm not crazy then, I thought it was Overlord I just wasn't seeing it. Is it folded under the Brits?

>>48954157
I'm not sure there are any in Overlord.

>>48954729
Yeah I just checked and now I can't find it. Seems I'm not as smart as I thought.

>>48954211
It's in market garden, you get polish paras under the brits

>>48956173
I think he was looking for Polish armor though, which is in Road to Rome. There should be some in Overlord though, as there were several Polish units in the Normandy campaign.

>>48953432
Very true: they should have re-located years ago to the States or UK, they'd be doing much better if they had.

>>48954126
The Polish 1st Armoured Division is a PDF, it was never included in a book.The list below covers Normandy and a bit beyond, but does not cover them getting a ton of 76mm Shermans later on:

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/Polish-1st-Armoured-Division.pdf

There are also Polish lists in Market Garden (Polish Paratroopers), and many list in Road to Rome (Armoured, Infantry, Armoured Cars, etc.).

>>48950699
I'm in the UK, still no infantry.

The worst thing is this is the second time things have come in late that my FLGS put in orders for. Not including the double-delayed soviet starter box.

>>48958055
I had my IHOP Zrinyis take over 6 months to get to my FLGS. The FLGS and BF blame each other, I think it was a combo of the two.

No matter what, I consider it a happy accident if I get something within a month.

>>48958055
>The worst thing is this is the second time things have come in late that my FLGS put in orders for.
There was an 18 month period at my LGS where literally every new release and half the restocks were delayed. Every time except one the excuse was "stuck in customs." The other time they said "it's stuck in a truck in Chicago."

>>48959238

That's why I am going ahead and buying all my west german stuff as soon as it comes out. I'm afraid if it runs out of stock, I'll be up shit creek. Even if it means talking the wife down after every big preorder.

>>48961214
Stuck in a truck?

What, they didn't have someone to drive the truck? Or people to unload it?

Most major van lines wouldn't want to leave a full truck just sitting idle.

They'd want to get it unloaded as fast as possible so that they could use it for more pick-ups and deliveries.

File: breaking-news.png (823KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 1280x720px

I know it's just another stupid meme but goddammit I can't resist them

Our (Aus) distributor goes to trade shows and sells the new TY releases before they fill store pre-orders.

File: nothing.gif (407KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 250x250px

http://www.wwpd.net/2016/08/preview-commonwealth-forces-in-battle.html
>Look guys!
>Look how playable cromwells are now!
>They are totally playable guys!
>They ONLY cost 455 a platoon!
>455!
>You could fit a whole 12 in a list!
>Totally playable!

>>48966866
425 for a 4-man CV platoon with a challenger. Doesn't sound overcosted, given they're all light tanks and the challenger's a ROF 3 AT 15 gun.

>>48966866
Thoughts:

1. I wonder if it's still "half challengers"
2. Rifles as mechanised?
3. Motor platoons as infantry?!

>>48966866
It says 425 for 3 Croms and a Challenger, which is in line with the 445 for Guards platoons from MG. 475 for twin Challenger platoons is a bit much, obviously. Better at that point to just do the Nachtjager thing and run the Challengers as independent platoons.

File: Panzerkompanie Nishizumi 1420.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

LW 1420 tournament coming up. Thoughts on this list? It'll be my first tournament.

>>48964589
Rommel's should've been "sounds like a good idea, can I get another promotion?"

>>48968873
>>48967571
>>48967367
My greentext was referncing the guy reviewing the lists talking about the new armored recce lists like they were the best thing ever for cromwells while they made almost exactly the same as they were in the other books. Also as it is they are overcosted for a front 6 tank with an AT 10 gun wich in LW is almost useless against armor, add that you are paying both fast tank and sif while not using them a lot since they cancel each other, the chally can also work with a bit of point reduction seeing as fast tank is not as useful if you want to use that rof3+sif and no he is really hampering.

>>48970023

Oo, another newbie with a big cats list. It might do really well, or it might have the shit kicked out of it. Depends on their list. A lot of infantry lists are going to outlast it. Tanks won't like it, though. Way too many Panthers for their liking. But, a good ambush with a decent gun might cause you some real problems, so make good use of that recon and be careful with your movement.

>>48970586
I've had other anons make that comment in regards to 1500.
I don't really see the whole 'you'll get mulched' thing- careful use of Sturmtruppen insures that the cats are out of sight for their turn, or at least heavily protected.

>>48970023
>3 platoons
>5 Panthers
>infantry and artillery to support

You're paying too many points for not enough units.

You will be out numbered and most likely flanked by twice as many lighter tanks like the Sherman which can still punch through your side armor.

You seem to lack the tools for dealing with large amounts of infantry, especially if they're going to be dug-in on the objectives and armed with a good number of anti-tank rockets.

A better choice would be a list built around Panzer IVs, or StuGs.

>>48970281
Yeah, at 95 points for CV, Croms are a bit overpriced. Challengers were 150, but Nachtjager dropped them to ~142.5 each. Still a bit much for their armor, but I can understand a reluctance to make a RoF 3 AT 15 gun even cheaper.

The dumb thing is the CS croms going from 65 to 75, and similarly (but more unreasonably) the CS Churchills going from 65 to ~85 (Assuming they decided to add the Guards re-roll cost to the 2IC as well as the CiC, which makes sense)

>>48970687
A lesson I've learned from experience, Stormtrooper will fail you when you most need it, leaving you exposed out in the open.

>>48970687
Just think of it as a fragile list if it's taking on more than just tanks. It's not doomed, it's just that Panthers are vulnerable to infantry and artillery and will depend heavily on how well recon is used. That makes it a bit of a finesse army.

>>48970817
Hence why i'll be keeping them happily in as much cover as i can pile on them. I don't know what the table layouts will be. It's supposed to be a fun tournament, so i'm looking forward.

Plus, Sobel's coming, so i just have to bait his paras into charging me.

>>48970687
>I'mma rely on stormtupp shuffle truffle
Yeah... That's always a recipe for disaster.

>>48970281
AT 10 is respectable against side armour, which a light tank is more concerned about hitting. The speed/special rules anti-synergy is a flaw, but they're a capable tank. They're playable, especially if they're not compared to the LLW US or Germany (though they're in the same book as LLW US lists, and IIRC some LLW German ones, so maybe that's a fair point).

>>48971130
If you are measuring the efficency of a unit you HAVE to factor in the top units, you can't just ignore them.

>>48971000
He'd be a fool to bum rush your Panthers with his paras.

My own paras would just sit back, guard the objectives, say "Here kitty, kitty kitty..." and wait for you to come to me.

Tank companies are typically the Attacker, so you'll have to go and capture the objectives. And they'll be well guarded with platoons that will likely have a lot of built-in anti-tank capability.

>>48970801
CS guns are a literal liability, so I have no idea why BF is charging more for them. Maybe they'll get made Breakthrough or something?

>>48971210
Sure, but if I wanted top units I wouldn't be touching brits anyway.

>>48971257
Which is why we're complaining. One of the big four basically being nonviable in competitive isn't right in a points-balanced game.

>>48971237
Yeah, I have no idea. Even if they got TY's "Brutal" they'd still be overpriced crapguns at the new points. They'd only be something you want to spend points on if BF gave them Breakthrough.

>>48971472
>Which is why we're complaining. One of the big four basically being nonviable in competitive isn't right in a points-balanced game.

Oh, sure, no, I agree the brits need some love, but it's the same with the soviets and most of the german lists. There's a couple of german lists and a lot of US ones that're very distorting.

One of the things it's struck me the US has going for it is flexibility in the list-building stage; you can put together platoons with just the right amounts of synergy, and tweak shermans so they fit just in the points limits. No other list has the ability to do that.

>>48971257
>British bitching

Yeah, they need some kind of buff.

Not entirely sure what exactly, but something.

>>48971559
It's supposedly historically accurate that a mix of makes and models would wind up the in the same platoon.

But in practice it leads to some min-maxed units on the table top.

>>48971649
I think really they need

>something like brutal to ease up the fact they get no effective breakthrough in any list on their CS guns

>Better artillery options; the 5+ FP really hurts.

>A look at late-war cruisers; mobility+SIF synergises badly

>Probably just cut the challenger's ROF and lower it's points. ROF 3 makes no sense.

>Also look at mech+tank lists in general; a hell of a lot of tank lists are traps compared to taking them as infantry with the same tanks in support, given that unlocks night attacks.

>>48971893
Oh, yeah, absolutely, but it means you can always squeeze points-efficient lists out of americans, even disregarding things like JLTW.

File: M113_Milan.jpg (101KB, 800x526px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x526px

Soon...

>>48971965
I really really want LW cruisers with Tally Ho and Broadside, i know it's unhistorical since they dropped that way of fighting after the north african campaign but i still want them really bad.

>>48972466
German M-113s?

Wouldn't Marders be the better choice?

Or are you thinking it would make taking German mechanized forces cheaper points-wise?

>>48964589
based Hungariboo

File: Trying to help the Guppie.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48970023
>>48970586
>>48970687

have you a set of miniatures you have to use?

why not go with a list like this?

Always Attacks means 80% likely to get no reserves hammer.
--Use the Panthers as a Spartan wall
--Advance Wilbels and StuG's with the Gep'Zeters.

it's a concentration list, and you should be dropping smoke like mad and shooting your Panthers from Cover while all else goes Zerg at 1 point.

>>48975999
>--Use the Panthers as a Spartan wall
Oh man. I had a photo of my King Tiger Deployment on Monday Night but shaky hands ruined it. Just five of them on top of a hill, lined up shoulder to shoulder with the 2IC covering the other approach. That's what happens when your opponent doesn't bring arty or aircraft.

I just discovered 653 fat panzerbutt, what other german lists with loads of half-assed field-conversions are lurking around out there?

>>48976705
Actually, I'll take anyone's weird field conversions. Already know super pershing.

>>48976705
The entire 21st Panzer Division in Normandy.

File: 2ec6abc014e0a8e3f3e283c37602ac6f.jpg (39KB, 466x300px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 466x300px

OP said Cromwells, so here's Cromwells.

File: 9ilel2q.jpg (850KB, 2041x1378px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 2041x1378px

>>48981380

File: 62c57809c43e6ca08e9ce30e7a2a4994.jpg (31KB, 690x415px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 690x415px

>>48981394

File: 85ea9b8d36162f43499e03f75b0c4b0d.jpg (53KB, 595x592px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 595x592px

>>48981414

File: 1519crom.png (709KB, 1223x712px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1223x712px

>>48981428

File: 81334.jpg (196KB, 960x713px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 960x713px

>>48981451

File: 22597779495_4654b35419_b.jpg (269KB, 1024x721px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1024x721px

>>48981473

File: AAEAAQAAAAAAAAcQAAAAJDE5ZjNiOTBiLWY5ODEtNDg3My04NTE3LTkwMmI5MjFmNDlhYg.jpg (61KB, 707x409px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 707x409px

>>48981495

File: Cromwell1920x1200.jpg (429KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1920x1200px

I am absolutely in love with the Cromwell One in Warthunder. With the Six Pounder, it's like a 57mm machine gun with a reload speed of 5.4 seconds, and you can hit 65 kilometres an hour on the flat. Only disadvantages are the steering is a bit 'wobbly' in that the brakes tend to stay on for a second longer than you think they do and that Solid shot has a serious disadvantage in knocking out tanks. Refuses to cook off Ammo, so you have to play "Hunt the last living crewman."

File: ARV2.jpg (66KB, 1024x536px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1024x536px

>>48981516
One more after this one, then I need to sleep.

>>48981526
Yeah, it's a shame that the I-III never saw combat, the 6pdrs would have been pretty useful against most of the armor they were up against. Most of the time (at least based off unit diaries I've read), tank crews just bailed out or retreated after taking even non-penetrating fire from AT weapons.

File: crom hatch2.png (686KB, 1221x569px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 1221x569px

>>48981555
And for the last one, how about a bunch at once?

If people want more, I can dump the rest of my Cromwell folder (~40 pics) later, but right now I need sleep.

>>48981526
I genuinely don't get the research tree seems to work backwards there. Why is it you research the Cromwell V then the Cromwell I? Or the Crusader AA mk. 2, then the Mk. 1?

Also, for fuck's sake, they just confirmed those army packs. I literally could have just asked for my birthday for Monty's Wolves, instead of buying all the tanks out of my own pocket. Guess I can ask for the Bulge compilations instead.

>>48981526

Fuck the reversing speed though. The only way out is through.

And i feel you about the bloody AP rounds. The penetration isn't bad, but goddamn if I don't prefer the 75 on pretty much anything else.
>steering
Yeah, I noticed a few of the British tanks are a bit all or nothing when it comes to turns. They're good at skidding around to face armour, though.

>>48981606
Because the 75mm gun of the Cromwell V isn't as powerful as the 6pdr, the Crusader AA Mk 2 is armed with twin 20mm cannons, and then the Mark 1 is armed with a 40mm bofors. I presume it's to make it so that the better BR tanks come ahead of the lower ones.

>>48981606

Typical it comes down to effectiveness. The better stuff tends to come later. And the Crusader Mk1 has the bigger gun, with a more lethal shot, at longer range. You can plink at bombers pretty effectively with it. Mk2 is really hoping enemy fighters get real low. The Mk1 can also be a nasty surprise if you catch enemy tanks on the flank.

>>48981606
Because it's considering gameplay effectiveness only, in a universe where only tanks and airplanes exist in one-off battles. In one-off tank v tank with no infantry, the HE shells and not "rips itself apart at sustained speed" drives of the later Cromwells are worse than the higher penetration and faster speed of the 6pdr armed earlier marks.

Though they really should include the Vw, because a Cromwell with a few inches of extra armor on the front (see>>48981394) would be pretty nice.

>>48981495
What is that on the turret? Strips of something (rubber)?

>>48981598
MOAR!

In Battlefront's update:

Shilling for silly new boxes with the Soft Covers in them.
Bulge Compilation Preview.

And American Tank Destroyers for TANKS

Which much like how they were in flames of war proper previously, promise to be fucking bullshit:
>Cautious: After shooting if this tank has any damage points left, roll a die. On a 4, 5, or 6, make a single move and add one to it's speed token.

>>48982818
I wonder how many points Tank Destroyers will cost in TANKS.
If they are cheap enough we are going to see hordes of them zipping around getting all kinds of extra dice for moving constantly.

>>48982987
The M36:
Initiative 7
Attack 6
Armor 0
Hull 3
Gung Ho and Catious (see Virus).
19 points

M10 has 1 less initiative and attack, for 15 points

>>48982987
>>48983025
Cautious and Gung Ho's a powerful combination. Plus not getting shot at.

>>48983039
It's fucking insane. Someone sane would have said "one or the other" (especially since I assumed that Gung Ho was due to stabilizers, which the TDs lacked)

>>48983025
5x 6 attack tanks with ini 7 in 100 points game with enough points to buy 1 points upgrades on wach of them ... gg they already fucked up their game

>>48983053
And you know, the fact that "Cautious" and "Gung-ho" basically describe two things that are entirely at odds with one another.

>>48983063
Gotta sell those new box sets! We can always fix it from broken tier once we make all our sales.

>>48983025
>>48983039
>>48983053
>>48983063
>>48983066
>>48983077
Honestly, I feel the 3 HP with armour 0 is the seriously limiting factor; if you do mess up (or the opposition is simply faster/better positioned, or you get a bad roll) these babies will feel the pain.

Gonna have to see how it plays out on the table, though.

>>48983135
A good hit will put these little fucks right down, but Int: 7 and Cautious makes getting that shot damn near impossible. On average they'll be moving twice per turn, you'll only get one extra defence dice, and they'll fuck off before you can shoot back.

>>48983214
Also they can move AFTER shooting half of the times, ok it's dice based but that's an enormous advantage, they can shoot and retreat out of sight probably disabling half your tanks all before you can shoot them back

File: c3fb37213e5dcad60164249a8a815cb2.jpg (75KB, 736x737px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 736x737px

>>48982599
>>>48981495 (You)
>What is that on the turret? Strips of something (rubber)?
British go at making something like Zimmerit, from what I remember.

>>>48981598 (You)
>MOAR!
Sure.

>>48983025
>Attack 6
>Comet and Firefly are attack 5
Well, if the absurd difference in the shermans didn't show it, looks like we have another game of "Brits suck because we say so, play Americans if you want western allies." Fuck.

File: crom hatch3.png (783KB, 1204x851px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 1204x851px

>>48984876

File: cromwell.jpg (81KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x399px

>>48984892

File: Cromwell-CS-01.jpg (30KB, 450x299px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x299px

>>48984904

File: CS.jpg (144KB, 960x575px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 960x575px

>>48984917

File: CS_2.jpg (115KB, 800x785px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x785px

>>48984934
Need to head off to work after this one.

>>48984876
> looks like we have another game of "Brits suck because we say so, play Americans if you want western allies."
Sadly it's hardly surprising Battlefront couldn't remove Patton's throbbing cock from their collective rectums long enough to at least keep their Ameri-philia to bearable levels.

Bloody Kiwis. Just kidding Virus, it's not your fault you were born in worse-Australia

>>48984990
To be fair, they have nerfed Patton in the upcoming Bulge compilation, and made other changes to the lists as well.

Such as support needing to be the same rating as the core platoons.

>>48983025
Everyone else has covered it - this is pretty nuts. Hits like an IS-2 for half the points, and despite being made out of paper it has a 50% chance of making three moves in a turn while rolling to hit as if it had made one.

I want to make a Cromwell-heavy list because I love how they look, but I don't see how the hell I'm supposed to compete against Americans or Soviets. Firepower 4 is pretty lousy in this game.

>>48981526
Nothing more satisfying than going hunting on an urban map and racking up multiple "Rank Does not Matter" medals.

>>48986028
Honestly, Cromwells are probably one of the better counters to Jackson spam. You out-initiative them by default, and have more points for upgrades (8 vs 5). 4 attack isn't great, but with only 3 hull and no base defense you can hurt them pretty bad. Hit them one at a time, abusing cover and your speed.

They're still bullshit, but croms are one of the better answers to this kind of bullshit.

Question from a relatively new player.

How many point is the average game for LW MW and EW?

>>48987028
Rule of thumb: 1750 LW, 1500 MW, 1500 EW (though EW is the most fluid, in my experience).

>>48987028
I'd say LW 1750, MW 1650 and EW 1550 or wathever your loacal tournaments runs with

>>48987028
1420 LW is currently in vogue because of tournaments, and I see 1500 LW i.e. "We used to play 40k" points sometimes too.

I kinda like 1420, it's a much leaner game and it's much easier to build armies for.

>>48987028
BF official points values for the North American tournaments change every year. For example, Late War was 1900 last year, this year it's 1420, in previous years it has been 1780, 1750, 1650, 1575, 1500, etc. Mid War and Early War change similarly.

Of course, non-BF tournaments can use whatever they like.

1500 Pts was the old "golden standard" for many years and is still my favorite in each period.

>>48988822
I still like 1750 for Late War.

It's not as absurdly large as 1900 or as constricting as 1420.

It allows you to have a decently sizable force without getting ridiculous.

Okay so I want to run the mental 653 list.

CO Tiger P - 285
2IC Bergepanther mit 7,5cm - 80

2 Elefant - 600

Panzer Scout Platoon (3 squads) - 145

Panzer Anti-Aircraft Platoon (1 Sdkfz 7/1 with armour, 1 Flakpanzer T-34(r) - 110

Assault Gun Platoon (4 StuGs, replaced with StuHs) - 380

Rocket Launcher Battery (3 rockets) - 105

That gives me 1705. Having a second 7/1 with the flakpanzers would make it 1755, annoyingly, unless I unarmoured them but I don't really want to do that so I can use them as troop-suppressors. The StuGs are all StuHs because A: I have no infantry and RoF 2 breakthrough is the next best thing, and B: They're only AT 10, and I've got plenty of AT 13-15 sitting around.

>>48990709

> 1750 Pts
> 10-12 Platoons of CT US infantry with 3-4 Artillery batteries, CT firing as Vet.
> not ridiculous

Eagles pls...

>>48990710
ugh that list is hard to work with, I remember trying to finangle a list and having a hard time with it. You may have to unarmored whether you like it or not. That, or do something kind of gamey like not have extra crew on one ticket launcher.

>>48991390
They're foot-launchers, so no crew.

The main thing I'm considering is dropping a squad from the scouts, 3 teams instead of 4 doesn't seem like a dramatic drop and they shouldn't be getting stuck in anyway. That gives me another 35 points, for either full-sized flakpanzer platoons or another team of something cheap to bump it to six.

>>48991557
In that case, you could get the bergepanther-AA, to get to 6 platoons (and another crazy tank).

>>48991850
Oh sweet, does it count as a team with the Bergepanther 7.5? I had assumed it'd be an independent team.

>>48991850
It's a tank team, bought in the HQ. Which means it is forced to form a platoon with the 2iC (the bergepanther 7.5). Crazy-ass platoon, and the bergepanther AA is surprisingly vulnerable (I guess that's what you get for replacing the turret with an almost unarmoured AA gun), but it's a 6th platoon, and another crazy conversion... and why do I use "crazy" so much when I talk about this list?

>>48984990
>Worse Australia.

We didn't elect Tony Abbot and we're rolling Fibre Optic Internet out to the door.
Also:
>Muh Rugby World Cup.

>>48991941
And lo, I have a list.

Probably awful but I have every german attempt to staple things onto the top of bergepanthers that I'm aware of so I'll take it.

>>48991968
You elected Helen Clark, you can't exactly brag or anything.

>>48994336
Aunty Helen was leagues and streets ahead of Abbot, she's up for the top UN job likely soon. Hell she's actually one of our most effective Prime Ministers in history.

Anyway.

How are KV-2s in midwar? Considering trying something out for a local tournament.

>>48991968
>Rugby

ALL BLACKS REIGN ETERNAL KIWI STRONK!!!!

>>48990779
>10 to 12
>plus arty

Huh? Stuff just isn't that damn cheap points-wise. Even for CT.

Unless I'm significantly mistaken.

>>48995587
Never mind. I finally dug out my D-Day books.

CT stuff is cheaper than I remembered.

Although for the longest time my old group was playing at 1750, and none of the armies ever seemed to be anywhere near that fuck-huge.

>>48996863
Eagles what's the status on the new Panzerfunk mate?

Also does anyone know how to magnetise the new Plastic Panthers?

>>48994669
>Aunty Helen
>Effective
Bruh she's nowhere near top job for UN. And she sold our jets.
Our jets, man.

File: RNZAFtaildifferenceTA4ranForum.jpg (79KB, 1024x690px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x690px

>>48999391
>And she sold our jets.
>Our jets, man.

NZ having a fighter air arm, especially in this day and age, was silly. NZ having a fighter air arm comprised of bloody A4 Skyhawks, in the age of drones and stealth warfare, was incredibly silly. We're still flying around in choppers that served in Vietnam, there's no point pretending we're going to go bomb somebody.

I do agree Helengrad has no chance of the UN job though; but that's mainly because her opponents are using the whole drama around foreshore and seabed thing as proof she's unfit for the position.

>>48999742
>NZ having a fighter air arm comprised of bloody A4 Skyhawks, in the age of drones and stealth warfare, was incredibly silly.
That's an argument for upgrades, not to just give up on the idea of national defence.

And numbers aren't an excuse either. You'd never been fighting anyone alone, one way or another. But THAT isn't an excuse to shirk the military either. Helen removed the option of ever getting anything modern, and then removed what was left. You were going to get F-16s.

>>48999962
>You were going to get F-16s.
Expensive toys with a colossal price tag. NZ's defence focus should be on coastal maritime operations, the primary aircraft being the Orion fleet. Jets are for countries that have things to shoot down.

>>48999991
>>48999962
>>48999742
See, this is why NZ should just take up the offer of becoming a state of Australia that's been standing since 1900.

I mean, they're relying on Australia for regional security *anyway*, since they don't let the USN anywhere near their ports...

>>48997221
>Also does anyone know how to magnetise the new Plastic Panthers?

Well, i'd start by putting magnets in them.

>>49000114
They'd be like an infinitely better Tasmania.

>>49000220
>>49000114
Counter point: Australians are too arse-backwards to be part of us.

>>48999991
>Jets are for countries that have things to shoot down.

True. When they got rid of even the veneer of a standing military they shot down the last bit of national pride they had left.

>>49000234
And that's basically why it won't happen. It's been too long, both nations have an identity, pride in their homeland and a sort of joking rivalry with each other. It's an interesting hypothetical but then how far down that rabbit hole do you go.

If ex-British domains are apparently more okay about federation despite separation by ocean and longstanding independence, could we consider a union between Australia (Hot Island Canada) and Canada (Snowy Northern Australia)? Throw in New Zealand as part of a package deal I guess and that's a pretty neat little union of pure impossibility.

>>49000317
No, Canada has too much france in it.

Icky.

>>48997221
>Eagles what's the status on the new Panzerfunk mate?

Yeah, I know it's been taking me a while, but work and other real world commitments (like my best friend's wedding) have been keeping me busy.

That being said, the edit is about 95% done.

So at some point tonight (US Eastern Time) I should have it finished and uploaded.

>>49000336
Exactly my point. RIP British Empire resurgent, instead we all get to fade away into minor players.

File: image.png (208KB, 1000x1566px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1000x1566px

>>49000371
>loyal to the crown
>militarily, politically, and culturally insignificant

>rebelled against the crown
>militarily, politically, and culturally dominant

'MURRICA! FUCK YEAH!

:-P

>>49000317
Australia are the school bully of the Commonwealth while Canada is the nice helpful but submissive guy, they are litterally the antipodes (see what i did there?) of each other, why would you put them together?

>>48994669
>How are KV-2s in midwar? Considering trying something out for a local tournament.
Not great, the downgrade from KV-1e is not worth imo. If you want to run KVs use the mixed tankovy, they are FC there o they are pretty cheap while still being unkillable by almost every other tank save for the sporadic big cat.

>>48999991
>>You were going to get F-16s.
>Expensive toys with a colossal price tag.
>F-16s
>colossal price tag
God, I forgot how poor some countries are.

>>49001635
Because I formulate nations on the BDSM method.

>>49001497
All nations decline in time. America's already peaked, and I find the prospect of its continued decline almost as depressing as the Commonwealth's.

>>48999991
>Expensive toys with a colossal price tag.
I suspect you mean, 'equipment that an army would use'.

>>49000234

That's at best, hyperbole.

>>49001774
The 7 states best days lie ahead, America or no.

>>49001729
The latest-block F-16s are actually per-unit more expensive than F-35s.

Block 60/61 is a hell of a drug, and the Saudis are both rich and retarded.

File: NVA237.jpg (454KB, 1416x944px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1416x944px

BT Fast Tank: The Red Army’s Cavalry Tank 1931-1945 (Osprey New Vanguard 237)

When the Red Army needed to mechanize its cavalry branch in the 1930s, the BT fast tank was its solution. Based on the American Christie high-speed tank, the Red Army began a program to adapt the design to its own needs. Early versions were mechanically unreliable and poorly armed but by the mid-1930s, the BT-5 emerged, armed with an excellent dual-purpose 45mm gun. It saw its combat debut in the Spanish Civil War in 1937 and was later used in the border battles with the Japanese Kwangtung Army in the late 1930s. The final production series, the BT-7, was the most refined version of the family.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/epktlrd4zhnj6cw/Osprey+-+NVA+237+-+BT+Fast+Tank+1931-45.pdf

>>49001774
America is currently Rome.

We're at the point of Bread and Circuses, there's no denying that.

The question is if we're just going to sit in a rooftop and fiddle while it all burns down around us and the politicians manipulate us into fighting amongst ourselves over stuff like who gets to use which bathroom....

*shaking my damn head*

I'm not saying we need to be "made great again" like the fucking idiot in the toupee keeps saying, but we do need to slow the decent into chaos.

>>49001908
I think the only reasonable conclusion is another World War with Germany. It worked for the US in the past 100% of the time, sort of.

>>49001948
Interestingly, also the roman solution. Shit's not going well? Let's invade someplace to boost our economy!

>>49001908
>We're at the point of Bread and Circuses, there's no denying that.
Said increasing nervous man for the 20th time this bicentury.

>>49001984
The best part as the US is you don't even have to be there for the first few years of the war. You just sit it out by tradition until some shocking but ultimately insignificant attack upon your people/nation justifies intervention. It's the cushiest war deal ever.

>>49002013

Ironic, considering that the bear isn't America's symbol.

>>49001948
At this point it wouldn't be Germany. They're not belligerent or militaristic.

Honestly, at this point it would be something like Russia throwing its weight around in Europe sparking WWIII.

Or maybe an escalation of the whole ISIS crisis into a complete clusterfuck engulfing all of North Africa and the Middle East.

Or Best Korea deciding to attack South Korea, and dragging both the US and China into the fight.

But barring some ultra-nationalist anti-Muslim sentiment suddenly growing in power, I don't see Germany going Fourth Reich on us any time soon.

>>49002062
I know, I was just being facetious. Any of the Old World powers being anything more than supporting actors in a World War is pretty unlikely these days.

>>49001833
>The latest-block F-16s are actually per-unit more expensive than F-35s.
How the hell? -35s are over $100mil each. What the fuck did they put in those F-16s?

I guess buy some AirLand Scorpions then, cheap enough and will do what you need quite well and should be relatively easy to turn into missleboats if shit starts looking bad.

>>49001984
Haven't they tried that already? Twice?

>>49001990
Nervous is the wrong word.

Concerned. Disgusted. Fed up.

People are too caught up in pop cultural nonsense and SportsBall games to pay much attention to the chaos around them.

"Oh look, another BLM riot. Oh look, another religious protest of LGBT issues. Oh look, another mass shooting." It all just becomes noise after a while.

And that blasé attitude about stuff like that is absolutely terrifying.

Okay...

To try to get us back on topic here, I have a question for other Soviet players in Team Yankee.

Assuming you only have 4 points to spend on AA, would you go for 4 Shilkas, or 4 Gophers, or 2 Shilkas and 2 Gophers?

>>49002408
4 Shilkas.

Having a single decent-sized unit makes them more survivable to morale stuff while providing a decent-sized no-fly zone.

Shilkas also shred through light vehicles if the enemy decided not to being air, while Gophers would be useless then.

>>49002551
That was my original thought as well. 4 Shilkas will absolutely shred enemy aircraft, and turn light vehicles into something resembling Swiss cheese.

But I like the Gopher and Shilka combo for the added range. Make the whole table a no-fly zone. But still have the flexibility of the Shilkas for anti-light vehicle work.

>>49002221
>sportsball meme
>noise
Welcome to freedom and pop culture. It was ever thus. In the meantime, the professionals get on with the work they know about.
>And that blasé attitude about stuff like that is absolutely terrifying.
Hardly blasé, just keeping things in perspective. We didn't invent fatalism, nor distraction and apathy. Not by a longshot.

>>49002192
Actually, now that F-35As have reached IOC and are entering full-rate production, the per-unit cost is being pegged at around about $80mil.

The -35B is going to stay expensive thanks to it's inherently more complex parts, but even that's sub-100mil now.

By Comparison, the F-16I has a per-unit cost of $70mil, and the new F-16E/F Block 60s the Saudis paid for (including $3bn in development costs) are, while still kept a bit under wraps, pegged at $100mil or just a hair less.

Not to mention the F-15K was a cool $100mil-per in 2006, ditto the more recent F-15SE, not that that one has any buyers.

Shit's expensive, yo.

>>49002962
Eh, a couple of years ago it seemed like America was actually shocked when spree killings happened. Now it feels a lot like everyone goes into Officially Mandated Sympathy mode and reads of a rote "terrible tragedy, never happens again, etc etc" statement and ignores it.

>>49003021
It's because we've grown numb to it. It's happening so often, so frequently, from religious extremists or emo kids, that we have become frighteningly used to it. Its almost like we have a sign up in the US that says "it has been 1 day with no mass shootings..." Now, I'm all for our rights, but the fact nothing gets done to impede gun purchases by crazy fucks on the FBI no-fly list, or kids under the age of 21, is fucked. And most of that is because the NRA has a lobbying board that shovels money at senators and keeps them voting in their best interest of selling guns. Add in a healthy dosage of paranoid fearmongering and a patriotism for the 2nd Ammendment (but not the 1st, mind you...). And it's not hard to see why Americans see yet-another-school-shooting, offer their slacktivist support, and go back to their usual Monday morning routine.

>>49003021
"it seemed like America was actually shocked when spree killings happened"
That's just the media. Nothing much has changed beyond that.
>>49003185
It always happened. But the media and politicians have milked that cow dead.

>>49003185
>And most of that is because the NRA has a lobbying board
Whereas the sweet, patriotic Brady campaign is working out of a garage?
>fear mongering
That pretty much characterises the gun control campaign.

>>48997221
I'm not sure magnetizing Panthers is worth it... I couldn't figure out how to do it without nasty gaps in the hull halves. But if you want to do it, I'd build a frame out of sprue and glue it with plastic cement to the hull bottom in order to get the magnet closer to the hull top.

>>49000114
Neither of you guys have much to worry about. Try being Taiwanese!

>>49003205
They beat a dead-horse, because it keeps producing money.

>>49003220
The Brady Campaign is trying to do the same thing, yes. They're doing a shit job of it, however. And have a fraction of the support, membership, and monetary clout.

Fearmongering characterises most of the political bullshit in America, period. Both gun control, and gun rights, have heaping piles of fearmongering. The left-wing press (MSNBC) tends to focus and blow the school shootings and mass murders into week-long events, and tries to drum up support for gun control. The right-wing press glosses over it and uses fearmongering to convince people that Obummer's coming to take their guns, "diversity" is a code-word for white-genocide, and buy all the ammo now because gobberment is removing it from shelves (which are barren because people are panic buying it).

Both sides are fucked in this shithole mess. And a lot of it has to do with gerrymandering, and politicians not having to listen to the voices of people outside their carefully-constructed districts of support.

>>49000353
>my best friend's wedding

Mate, that's a terrible film. Not an acceptable alternative.

Great, now we're going to get another 50 posts of pointless partisan bullshit that only yanks care about before the thread does the dignified thing and plunges into the archives.

Eagles, what did you do?

>>49003495
I wouldn't call it partisan. I hate both sides equally. The zealous-right and faux-left here in the US are both fuck-awful piles of shit, for their own reasons.

So yes, I agree. Let's drop it.

>>49003495

Oi, it was the Kiwi's first.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

>>49003452
I've never seen it.

>>49003495
Forgive me. I'm in a morose and misanthropic mood today. Especially as we grow closer to the Three-Ring Circus that is the US election.

And the debate at Hofstra University will practically be in my back yard...

I bit of a general question hopefully overriding the yank gun-wank

How do you best differentiate different tank platoons. Germans have it easy, just ue their numbering. Russians apparently had something similar, though not as common, so alternatives could be useful there as well. Yanks usually only show the big-ass stars everywhere, though I guess you could have some system where different star configurations mean different platoons. Still not optimal. Brits... I have no idea, they seem to only have used their geometrical shapes (and those were the same withing the company), and a large allied star on top of the turret/engine compartment.

>>49004271
Brits used a number inside a yellow circle to idintify the tank's number, however it's really difficult to actually use it since it's really small on the mini, i personally don't bother with identifying platoons, i just slap down shermans from my collection and when the platoons get mixed i throw in a couple dice to distinguish them

File: challenger3.jpg (92KB, 700x448px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 700x448px

>>49004271
>Brits
Some units painted the Troop (platoon) number inside the shape (like here). It wasn't universal or particularly common based off pics, but it was frequent enough that it's a reasonable way to mark different platoons.

>>49004436
Those numbers inside yellow circle was bridging numbers, telling you how heavy the vehicle was, for getting over bridges and such

>>49004469
Mostly guards, it seems.

>>49004436
The numbers in small yellow circles are bridge classification numbers, showing the weight of the vehicle in tons. They're based on the chassis, not the unit using them.

File: download (10).jpg (8KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x168px

>>49004544
>>49004504
I've been living in a lie all this time ...

>>49004271
It might be a bit too small in this scale, but usually on the side of the tank near the back US tanks would have a long Serial Number.

Not exactly useful for quick identification on the table top, but it was there.

File: image.jpg (73KB, 770x840px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 770x840px

>>49004814
Here's a diagram for US tank markings.

>>49003875
Commies get out!

Assuming I want to play a LW Tiger I or Panther list, what would be my best options?

>>49006092
Probably Desperate Measures trained panthers, since I feel like RV panthers suffer a lot from a lack of protected ammo.

>>49006092
Definitely a Desperate Measures trained list, but probably not the tank school ones.

>>49006442
Though largely because of their shit support; losing wide tracks and stormtroopers probably doesn't matter as much for trained and it makes them a bit cheaper.

>>49000234
Raging NZ inferiority complex is at it again...

>>49004271
Soviets actually had some pretty extensive numbering schemes. A lot of it looks like anarchy at first glance, with letters and numbers seemingly picked at random. A lot of times it varied from brigade to brigade, or corps to corps, with each battalion having their own variant of the overall marking scheme. For example, the 11th Guards Tank Corps had 3 brigades which utilized parallel horizontal bars... The 40th had one bar, the 44th had 2, and the 45th had 3.

The 3 corps of the 3rd Guards Tank Army each used a series of circles to denote which corps the tank came from; 6th was one, 7th had one circle inside the another, and the 9th had 3 circles in the same fashion.
The 4th Guards Mechanized Corps used animals to differentiate everything, while the 8th self propelled artillery brigade featured an eagle in a circle, with a varying number of downward pointing triangles under it (repsrrsenting different units).

The most common markings were a rhomboid (diamond) with numbers in it, usually split with a dividing line in the middle.

You can find more here:
http://wio.ru/tank/oz/oz-en.htm

A re-enactment group laying out soviet breakthrough tactics in miniature.

http://www.20thgmb.com/rkaa-tactics.html

Interestingly, they're using smoke...

File: image.png (74KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1024x1024px

>>49007731
This isn't even bait at this point.

Just obvious trolling.

>sparks 50 post long Battlefront Hates Soviets discussion anyway

>>49008148
What? How is a post about Soviet WW2 tactics a bait post in a thread for a WW2 miniatures game?

>>49008293
It's "Oh shit, the soviets used smoke? Guess I'd better declare everyone I don't like a whingey beta pre-emptively so I don't have to listen to any evidence otherwise".

>>49008148
>>49008590
You're both missing the important bit:

The Soviets called their preparatory bombardment "The Treatment". That's cool as shit.

>>49008293
The biggest bitching Soviet players have is that for some bizarre reason they don't have smoke in-game.

"See! Soviets used smoke!" Is prey much like shining the Bat-Signal to all the people who love to bitch about Soviet forces rules-wise compared to how they "really should be".

>>49008721
What is the reason they don't have smoke?

>>49008801
They used it more on a regimental level while the Allies used it on company or platoon level. Although to be fair everything about soviet organization is scaled up in FoW so they should get smoke, at least on mortars imo.

>>49009074
Yeah, I was going to say, hero "companies" are sometimes entire /brigades/, so the soviets are definitely working at higher levels.

>>49006092
Kampfgruppe Hummel (Bridge by Bridge) or Ausbildungs Abteiling 500 (Desperate Measures) if you want Tigers,
trained Ausbildungs Verband (Desperate Measures), trained Panzer Kapfgruppe (Desperate Measures) or Panzer (Bridge by Bridge) if you want Panthers with support
FHH Panzer (Blood Guts & Glory) or Panzer (Blood Guts & Glory) if you want dirty cheap Panthers with little to no support
You could run a FT SS Panzer Kampfgruppe (Wiking) too just don't use big cats if they are veteran, they're too expensive.

>>48997221
those slots are a little too shallow or the magnet is so small it droips in.
you have to get out a dremel and light counterbore.

or, get a plastic drum and drop it below the hole pre-assembly. it can still hold a magnet.

Anyone know if the tank destroyer boxes will come with the security sections?

>>49001833
>the Saudis are both rich and retarded
People who know better than me have gone over the videos of their Abrams exploding and agree with you.

File: panzerfunk camo logo.jpg (323KB, 936x817px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 936x817px

>>48997221
>>Eagles what's the status on the new Panzerfunk mate?

>>49000353
>So at some point tonight (US Eastern Time) I should have it finished and uploaded.


The new episode of Panzerfunk is online!

>Panzerfunk Episode 15: Müller? Müller?

The Funkmeisters are back!

Topics discussed in this episode:
- Recent Hobby Activities.
- A full review of Leopard, the new West German army book for Team Yankee!
- Ask The Funkmeisters - Questions from YOU, our loyal listeners.

http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/e/panzerfunk-episode-15-muller-muller/

>>49011958
What were the questions this time?

>>49011958

Thanks based eagles. I will shoot you an email to the panzefunk address. I might be able to do some mixing for future episodes if you guys wanted help.

>>49012001
>What were the questions this time?

I honestly don't remember them all.

One was about MBT development history.

Another was about acceptable levels of non-historical paint scheme and units.

One was about transports for gun teams.

One was a complete troll question / meme.

And I don't remember the others off the top of my head.

>>49012075
>I might be able to do some mixing for future episodes if you guys wanted help.

Perhaps.

I'm usually fine editing things on my own, but what should have been a quick project ran long due to a lack of time to work on it all that much.

This really should have been out a week or two ago, but I had very limited time this past month.

I think tomorrow is literally my first semi-free Saturday since we actually recorded this episode.

>>49001891

It's adorable.

>>49011958
Good episode, but the Chieftain has a 120mm, not the M1's 105mm. The Challenger 1 also entered service in '83 so we'll likely see them as their Leo 2 equivalent (but with horrifyingly good front armour).

>>49015006
Ah. Ok.

Like we said, we're no experts. We're only historical wargamers, not military historians.

Either way, the British in Team Yankee will likely be a powerful force. Perhaps on-par with West Germany.

>>49015279
Not a big deal, just decided I'm chime in and clear that up.

>>49015317
No problem. Always glad to get feedback. Positive or negative.

Also, new thread time.

NEW THREAD HERE:

>>49015344

>>49011426
Nope, just 4 TDs