Flames of War: Eddie is my C.O.edition

Well, you did say you had the best banner...

>>49115311
folk yesss!

who here is TY Britbong?

I still find it highly amusing when Soviet TY players cry because they aren't superior to NATO. At least they have decent AA, they have recon, they have MANPADS, etc. The Americans are still half finished, but we don't bitch half as much.

>>49115569
I think the main objection was that they were to only ones who were, for all intents and purposes, Trained. And games against Veterans aren't nearly as fun (since it's way to easy to end up at 6s to hit).

>>49115675
I sort of see that to a point. I do think that the only "veteran" troops in the game should, in theory, be the Afghantsy, and maybe the post-Falklands Brits. That being said, the dev's explanation that NATO tech is better sort of makes sense, but sort of doesn't. I don't really see a good way to appease them other than to make everyone trained, but even then it it'll cause a whole new set of gripes.

>>49115569
Soviet players don't want to be better than NATO. They just don't want to be the only faction of redshirts who are hit on 3+. Especially when their veterans coming back from actual combat in Afghanistan are worse than NATO's forces that have seen no combat.

>>49115730
Make them not the only ones "trained", and give them some veteran lists (with fewer numbers, of course).

>>49115268
Love it!

Absolutely beautiful!

Does TY have playable Israelis?

>>49116401
TY currently has Americans, Soviets, and West Germans.

With British coming by the end of the year.

>>49116401
TY only has playable Germans.

>>49116433
I guess I will stick with the FoW Arab-Israeli war stuff. Thanks anon.

>>49116401
Should be fairly easy to just proxy if you want to play as greatest ally. Just grab yourself some IDF from Peter pig and merkavas from qrf.

>>49116450
Hyperbole. Pure exaggeration.

The Soviets and the Americans are both playable.

The US lacks enough AA, and the Soviets play like a Trained force in regular FoW, but both are more than playable as-is.

>>49116566
There definitely seems to have been some power-creep with the germans, though.

>>49116734
Only because they got fully fleshed out while the US and Soviets only got put out in part.

Assuming I want to build a balanced american and german LW force to play with friend who arent into tabletops, how would I go about that?

>>49116805
Buy the new compilation books coming out.

>>49116805
It's technically British and Germans, but there is the Open Fire starter set.

>>49115392
britbong here do you have your playing wargames licence valid?

>>49118110
AM I BEING DETAINED?

>>49118208
That depends... Are you BWA?

Black While American

>>49115392
I'm definitely going for brits as soon as they're out.

>>49118324
Holy shit all that plastic.

>Plastic FV432/Swingfire
>Plastic Lynx
>Plastic Chieftain
>Plastic Spartan/Striker
>Plastic Scorpion/Scimitar

Also christ, all those swingfire launchers. I feel like brits are going to be ATGM hell.

>>49116805
If they aren't into tabletop, start with a simple mini-game like TANKS. The Americans and Soviets are stronger than the Brits and Germans, so let them use those.

I've just seen the Battle of the Bulge compendiums being released. I've all ready bought Blood Guts Glory, Devil's Charge, Nuts, and Remeagen . Do these compendiums offer anything that's new and ultimately worth the 30 quid price?

>>49115268
yesssssssss

>>49119762
Yes. Much needed nerfs.

There's also a few new lists, and the german stuff's gotten a little buff here and there.

>>49119887

thanks Anon. I'm guessing Yanks got spanked?

In other news, gutted there's no TY Challenger 1 or Centurion lined up

>>49119982
>Based on a lot of player feedback that Patton is considered over-powered, we decided to have a review of his rules. We made changes to change Foul Mouth to give 2+ Motivation for a platoon Patton joins (rather than 3+ for platoons within line of sight), and remove the Spearhead for platoons within line of sight. However, we have reduced his points to 75 points (from 100 points).

Yanks have been spanked.

>>49120033

I never used him or went up against him (I'm sort of a novice) but damn, that's a terrifying ability he used to have. Thanks Virus

>>49120033
Also can't take towed gun TDs anymore (they're just guns that are allowed to make ambushes now), and no mix-and-match with platoon ratings. They still get the sherman multitool platoon but that's probably less easily fixable, and without other stuff it might be less of a problem.

I'm slightly confused on the schedule with brits coming out for october/novermeber, though. I thought Bulge was before the brits?

>>49115569

I don't see what their problem is though, Soviets are the best faction in the game right now IMHO.

It just seems really autistic to focus on that one number like its the most important thing about the game while ignoring everything else.

Are they insisting on trying to out shoot Americans at long range? That is really the only situation that I've seen the to hit number really hurt them, and if you are doing that you aren't playing to the Soviet's strengths.

>>49120759
I think it was done to encourage soviets to close and attack more often, as was the style at the time

File: TANKS-Achilles-3.gif (375KB, 690x975px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 690x975px

M10 kit confirmed to have 17pdr option. Also, TANKS stats for the Achilles. It's a Jackson that costs 1 point less, has 1 less initiative, and has semi-indirect instead of gung ho.

And they still assembled it with the less common early wedge counterweight, when most Achilles were made from the duckbill counterweight M10s.

The bulge lists are on FOW Digital for free right now, anyone have any questions? Just finished downloading.

File: Screenshot_20160901-205908.png (925KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

925KB, 768x1024px

>>49121010
WHY IS IT LOADING SO SLOWLY

File: Screenshot_20160901-210155.png (975KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

975KB, 768x1024px

>>49121100
They have the hero rule lel

>>49121149
FT but passes skill tests as if vets... Where have we seen this before?

>>49121190
On like, a million different lists? The basic idea of 'dies easy, kills good' has been around for a long time.

I am 10 minutes into the Allied book and it's still loading, it appears to be an early version uploaded by mistake based on the crosshairs on each page. I'm tired of screenshots, but am reading the Vet Rangers currently. Any questions on the Axis stuff should require at least 10 minutes for this to load again. IT MIGHT BE PULLED AT ANY TIME

File: Screenshot_20160901-211127.png (896KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 768x1024px

>>49121250
They fucked up bad, also the book unloads earlier sections and need to be redownloadex. It is virtually nonfucntional.

>>49121149
This is the African American division, correct?

I've heard some great stuff about them.

>>49121149
Dammit now everyone is gonna play them. I thought I was gonna be special dammt

File: image.jpg (28KB, 220x200px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 220x200px

>>49119019
>All that plastic
I just assembled 9 boxes of resin for my West Germans.

________________

Seperate topic
>Infantry in team yankee

They don't get talked about much, but from the games I have played, infantry are good in Team Yankee. Dig them in on the objective, especially if you are Soviet, and you at the very least force your enemy to move up their MBTs or self propelled arty to dig them out. Afgansty are especially nasty, with a lot of integrated support against air and armor.

West Germans have Milans which are nice, but they have too few stands to stand up in a prolonged assault. The Brits may be able to put more milans on the table.

What are your thoughts on infantry in TY? With the Brits having a heli company, we should see even more infantry involvement. Not to mention infantry assaults are going to bust right throught the Chieftains bazooka skirts.

>>49122035
they die to tank assault.

american infantry cannot survive tank assault with Russians. they can't pen in assault

>>49122175
Sure, but when you know where the enemy is going to have to send their tanks, you can plan accordingly.

>>49122035
American infantry are solid, but need to at range against armor. West German infantry are pretty good too, but are so weak in numbers that they die off pretty easy. Soviet infantry are pretty good, but lack range and can only hurt lighter vehicles from the front.

>>49123072
>but need to at range against armor
And if they don't, they just

File: abtfroadambush.jpg (18KB, 535x379px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 535x379px

>>49124321
>>49122175

this.

just look at the LAW values, realize the Dragon is a lame Assault 5 or 6 weapon, and look at BDD armor. and keep in mind all those T-72's have brutal, so.....

splat

Did battlefront suffer a stroke?

Because these are really the new books, for free, on Flames of War digital. It's got Patton's new rules and everything.

>>49124530
Someone else mentioned it a bit up, so it seems so. If you guys with forces can somehow get it into a distributeable pdf copy, we'd all be grateful.

>>49124744
the app is free, may as well get tit and download the lists.

I mean I'd imagine some guys don't have smart phones/tablets but for most people you can grab it right now. It works great on my phone at least.

File: bruce-dickinson-tank.jpg (332KB, 1424x810px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1424x810px

>>49115268
>dat Eddie

In case some of /fow/ were unaware, Iron Maiden's frontman Bruce Dickinson is a tank enthusiast, his particular waifu being the T-34.

>>49126095
Awesome, I love how metal heads tend to be history nuts.

his tank waifu is inferior to Lemmy's of course

Could someone pls upload the Bulge books somewhere?

I dont have the app.

>>49124786
I can't seem to find it on the app store (I have an older iPhone though, so maybe that's why).

>>49126716
Seconding this.

I may be missing something but can soviet infantry do anything against abrams except bail on a roll of 1?

>>49121149
That nigger unit has some nice rules. If I ever have to play against that I demand the figures to be painted as niggers though.
What you see is what you get. :^)

>>49126879
Oh it's you again. You've been acknowledged, now get back to to >>/pol/ the grownups are talking.

>>49126879
Given theyve got the best of the German and Soviet special rules apparently you get a whole goddamn lot.

Theyre americans who get rerolls on their first bombardment with 105 shermans, Mission tactics, and essentially get the hero rule for their trained equivalent so they're pretty much vets no matter what.

Plus, they get access to all the good tanks in good numbers. You don't have to take a single 75mm sherman, to the point where they're considered an "upgrade" from 76mms.

Granted, theyre crazy expensive, but given all the abilities they have its for a damn good reason

>>49120759
No, the problem is as usual, everyone else gets a ton of new content and the soviets get to sit on their asses with nothing shiny.

So, it turns away players stuck with the same stagnant shit (with only a couple lists to play with), while NATO keeps raking it in with all sorts of new hotness, and then people leave because they feel cheated. And for those metas that don't let blue on blue games, it weakens the game when everyone is NATO with its options for days.

Also yes, trained soviets vs vets for days.

>>49127031
Yeah, turns out if you give soldiers 2 years to train and drill they get pretty good at their jobs, who knew? I would wager that Mr. Edgelord is pretty butthurt that a black unit is pretty much better than most of its white equivalents at their job.

>>49127103
>>49127031
FT with Hero works pretty well for them, yeah. Lacked the field knowledge that experience brings, hence the enemy hitting them on trained, but all that training and the "we cannot afford to fuck this up" attitude makes fearless and Hero entirely logical.

And IIRC, they get a FV option as well, which is a bit more expensive for obvious reasons and represents them after they HAVE been thrown into combat and learned how to most effectively keep their heads down.

>>49127074
>No, the problem is as usual, everyone else gets a ton of new content and the soviets get to sit on their asses with nothing shiny.
So, where's that new US content in TY?

File: 1379561831597.png (86KB, 983x852px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 983x852px

>>49127351
After bongs next two books will be Warsaw Pact and then any betting man would put their money on more americans

File: KK41pHu.jpg (168KB, 1467x819px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1467x819px

>>49126241
Indeed.

File: stalin and lenin.jpg (81KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 900x900px

>>49126879
How triggered can one fascist be?

>>49127074
>>49127074

Soviet's had a lot of shiny support options when they dropped.

>Rocket arty
>Recon
>3 formations (once afghansty dropped)
>MANPADS and Missile AA
>2 nice BMP options
> an attack helicopter with a 4+ save that can carry infantry

After the Brits drop we'll likely see a soviet/ WarPac book. Hopefully we'll see a formation with T-64/T-80 option at a 4+ to hit or RoF 2. Even then, my guess is that people are still going to find something to be upset about.

The new brit and west german stuff has nice variety, but the Soviets current gear isn't be any less viable with their release.

>>49128192
>>49127729
East Germans are confirmed for a full book, not a magazine release like the Afgansty by Wayne. They're next up after Iron Maiden.

Bit of a Team Yankee question: does anyone have scans of the M109, 2S1 and Shilka cards?

I know at least some of us have the Zvezda versions but would still like to make some reference cards for them.

>>49128389
The PDF is in the scans database. You should be able to copy the "unit cards" from there abd print them out.

>>49126826
Spigot/fagot missiles can bust them from the side, anything else will really struggle to do anything meaningful.

>>49128644
Those are still quite fiddly to get working properly.
In particular, the special rules explanation on the back.

>>49129498
Good point. I was thinking the quick reference sheets had rule explanations... but alas they do not. I guess you could scribble it on the back.

File: AfroMilamiamoffukaowut.jpg (8KB, 251x247px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 251x247px

>>49126879
>>49126932

he's right. if they are that unit, paint them in african tones. or, you can paint them actually black and have units full of honest Golliwogs.

>>49127343
>>49127103
I do find it deliciously ironic that them being held back from combat due to their race is what allowed them to train so much and get as good as they did. The racist sumbitch that were trying to ensure they failed essentially gave them exactly what they needed to survive all the bullshit that would be thrown against them in Europe.

Had they been thrown into combat with as little training as some of the other units got, history couldve been very different. If that had happened, it could have pushed back desegregation in the military by another decade, if not more.

Got the Team Yankee soivet box for 45 squidos what am I in for lads?

Anyone here used a Churchill-based armored force? Which of the 3 lists (Overlord, Road to Rome, Nachtjager) would you recommend? And what do you think is the right amount/type of support choices?

>>49130021
That seems to be a commonality among African American military units during WWII.

They had something to prove to their superior officers, to other soldiers, and to American society as a whole.

So they pushed themselves to be as good as they can. To prove that they are just as good, if not better than white soldiers.

>>49130433
A fun, fast and lethal game.

With Soviet tanks in particular, you get cheap but solid MBTs that are more than capable of taking out anything that NATO can throw at them while still appearing in numbers.
Haven't used my Hinds much yet, mostly because I only just set up my transport foam for the pair of them.

File: 800px-Motrifleplatoon_lineformation.jpg (143KB, 800x561px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 800x561px

>>49128299
Rockin' BRT-40s and a couple of BMP-2s right? Haha. Fug, having the infantry will be nice, instead of converting normal soviets with the peter pig helmet pack.

>>49130021
To be fair, their actual CO was actually pretty cool with them - Jackie Robinson was actually transferred out to another unit because the station commander wanted to pull him up on charges for insubordination for not sitting at the back of a bus, but the commander refused, so he was transferred to the other African-American tank battalion whose CO was willing to go through with the court martial.

It's also worth noting that one of the guys pushing for African-Americans in combat was Leslie McNair - who honestly seems to get a bad rap overall.

>>49130470
Ditto the Japanese-Americans.

>>49128389
https://www.mediafire.com/?yc7lhhg36u1ht3s

Enjoy the game ;)

>>49131560
Thanks.

File: Churchill-Mk.-IV-Done-023.jpg (99KB, 1023x768px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1023x768px

>>49130438
Nobody?

>>49131659
Used my handful of Churchills a bit for fun in Italy infantry lists.
They seem pretty solid there, especially against medium tank lists.

>>49130438
wanted to play with Churchills from Nachtjager and combine them with paratroopers (since with special rule they get 3+ save as tank passengers) but it's not a big boost as Churchills are slow, so it's a 8 inch move instead of infantry 6. Still want to test the list thought...

>>49131044
They had heaps of BMP1 and BTR-70. Only like 20 BMP2 though so they might not be included in the lists.

>>49131911
Don't use tanks as transports. They're bullet-magnets.

>>49131955
Basically this. It's ok with Lorried Rifles and Cromwells, but that's because 16" move ain't nothin to fuck with. With 8" move Churchills... Not really great. Even when night attacking (taking the paras as the main force with Churchill support, obviously) you'll want the infantry on foot, since the Churchills won't get the spearhead move. Basically only useful so when you desperately mount your paras onto your double-timing chuchills you don't get quite as fucked by the enemy (though you'll still get fucked)

>>49131935
They probably will, knowing Battlefront. And wargamers deploying more of X special snowflake unit than ever did exists.

>>49131935
Did they atleast get BMP-1Ps so we can avoid the gay looking sagger?

>>49130438
The most successful ones I’ve seen have been Road to Rome infantry lists with as much Churchill support as they could take. Their lack of mobility isn’t a big deal in those lists, but it’s also more fun than plain infantry (i.e. sit back and roll dice).

>>49132944
Yeah, but they started the upgrade program in 1987 so it's slightly late for the time period.

>>49131560
I'll get that added to the scans database after I return from my vacation.

>>49131560
Did just spot that misses a bunch of card backs.

>>49122035

I play US Mech and I don't really view them as infantry but a large platoon of AT guns and kind of play them accordingly. From that standpoint they are a very good deal as all the soviet players around here run BMP swarm lists.

>>49135783
possibly, got them from a friend and I didn't check them all desu

>>49133244
Well, I had been considering it mainly as a Churchill list with support instead of infantry with Churchill support, but since I was also looking at airlanding brits I could make something like this from Nachtjager:

Compulsory Airlanding Company HQ (p.3) - CiC SMG, 2iC SMG (60 pts)

Compulsory Airlanding Platoon (p.3) - Command Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 5x Rifle/MG (220 pts)
>Command Panzerfaust/SMG upgrade (10 pts)

Compulsory Airlanding Platoon (p.3) - Command Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 5x Rifle/MG (220 pts)
>Command Panzerfaust/SMG upgrade (10 pts)

Airborne Recce Platoon (p.6) - Command Universal Carrier, Universal Carrier, 2x Daimler Dingo (140 pts)

Airborne Recce Mortar Platoon (p.7) - Command Rifle, Observer Rifle, 4x ML 4.2" mortar (170 pts)

Guards Tank Platoon (p.12) - Command Churchill VI, Churchill VI, Churchill IV (late) (305 pts)
>3x Applique armor (30 pts)

Guards Tank Platoon (p.12) - Command Churchill VI, Churchill VI, Churchill IV (late) (305 pts)
>3x Applique armor (30 pts)

1500 Points, 6 platoons

Pretty obvious weakness to Panthers and enemy heavy tanks, though I think it can handle medium tanks, mechanized, and infantry pretty well.

>>49137436
>Pretty obvious weakness to Panthers and enemy heavy tanks
You have Gammon Bombs. Your solution to any kind of heavier tanks, is to find a nice piece of difficult terrain near an objective, dig in and go "here kitty kitty kitty". Remember: don't do a Tim and charge the heavy tanks, let the heavy tanks assault you instead. Sure, they'll get a few guys in the initial round. You are Fearless, with British Bulldog, the only way he'll win the assault is if he wipes you. Odds are higher that you'll wipe him first.

File: Leopard_1A5A1_2.jpg (241KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1600x1067px

So, im gonna do this:

http://www.strawpoll.me/11141704

>(pick a main, if you play all/both)

have fun!

>>49139419
theres no waiting for Bradleys option so I just checked Reeeeee

>>49137623
>>49137623
True, I'm so used to running Cromwells with a tiny bit of infantry that I've forgotten how do deal with enemy tanks aside from shooting them in the sides or with 17pdrs.

Quick assaulting math (assuming no effective defensive fire, which with a PIAT and a Panzerfaust per platoon isn't necessarily accurate) for 3 Tigers (yes, bit of a point disparity) assaulting, rounding to nearest whole number for casualties and assuming everyone passes their morale (luck or SS with company commander for Germans, raw stats for brits)
2 dead Brits initial pass
Brits swing back, average 1.11 killed/bailed Tigers (rounds to 1)
1.33 dead Brits (rounds to 1)
1 dead/bailed tiger
.67 dead brits (rounds to 1)
.88 dead/bailed tigers
Tigers statistically gone by 3rd round of assault in exchange for 4 paras, even assuming they never run. Damn, I did not realize how nasty they are against even top 2 tanks. Going against ones with rear MGs drops the kill rate notably, though.

File: m9e4ynkT6j1r6nj3xo1_500.jpg (141KB, 500x478px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x478px

>>49131935
Fuck ton of BTR-60s in 1980s still too.

This battlefront Gvozdika model is a pain in the ass lads

Bulge leak?
Please?

>>49141407
Can't be worse than the Leopard 1.

>>49141428
Oh.. I was looking forward to getting some of those.
Which part of the leopard is shitty? Its the gun with the 2S1
I might just wait for skytrex to release their version 2bh, their shit has been top notch so far

>>49141492
Battlefront needs to get rid of the resin crap and get higher quality metal castings for infantry.

File: 1429564667728.jpg (57KB, 248x248px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 248x248px

>>49141602
Ive never had too many problems with the resin, but the metal can be pretty gay sometimes/often.
>cutting off the miscast pegs, drilling into the barrel breach and then the turret so I can pin these faggot guns
>will have to do this bullshit 6 times to have a proper unit

>>49141492

>Problems with every model in the box
Nearly all track pieces needed to be bent to fit the body by soaking in hot water. Fit still isn't great. The tracks fit to the tank body clumsily compared to the Gepard.

Some of the metal pieces had pretty bad mold lines, this was not as much of an issue with my second box.

Some detail on the tank body is "fuzzy" for lack of a better word.

>Noticed on 1 track per box

Chipped mudflaps and defects on the tracks (holes in trackpads and odd chunk of resin.) This happened for both boxes.

Defect (small hole) on the side of the tank body.


Despite the flaws in the kit, I am happy to have 2 boxes of them. Once I finish doing the camo, they will look good enough on the table. I hope they sell individuals in the future, so I can secure the seventh tank.

>>49141718
Thats pretty weak for moulds that have to be, at most, 6 months old

File: 1458263399358.jpg (183KB, 1024x674px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1024x674px

>>49141718
It's a second/third push sort of deal, where the first batch is good, but then they panic and realize there wasn't enough and start pushing out product fast.

>>49142161
>>49141907

I got them as soon as my FLGS could bring them in. I guess America got screwed after the initialy Müller delay. Most all the other resin kits are fine. Gepards are really good, even if mine were a bit sticky. Another sign of rushed production, I guess.

File: Trump loosing in Polls.jpg (105KB, 999x507px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 999x507px

>>49139419
>http://www.strawpoll.me/11141704
>present standing
wow, less murricans

>>49142558
Why is there no 'all' option?

>>49142666
Who the fuck has that kind of scratch or time or level of sadomasochism other than Maybe Eagles and that's because he's getting kick backed by his LGS.

>>49142692
Uh, I do, apparently. Who knew being forever alone with a decent job translates to piles of lead and resin.

File: su100_aberdin_1.jpg (42KB, 585x337px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 585x337px

Is it weird if I would love to play T-55s, SU-100s and btr-152s vs NATO?

>>49141416
it's already leaked on the app. You can literally download it for free straight from them

>>49142809
What about ISU-152Ms? Those were still in use

>>49143506
Those too

Anyone tried a late-war soviet vs late war japan Autumn Storm type game?

>>49142692
No kick back.

Just a deep discount sale that lasted all of August.

That, combined with the fact that Blue on Blue was growing a bit stale, convinced me to start up Soviets for Team Yankee.

It's hard to say no to 25% off.

That being said, at some point closer to the end of the year, I'll probably add some West Germans to my collection. It's what I originally wanted to do as my second force.

Now, if I decide to go 4 for 4 with Iron Maiden, then it's time to start questioning my sanity.

And my finances.

>>49143438
Unless you don't have an iPad, apparently. Tried downloading it on my phone and got shut down.

>>49144638
I dont have the app.

Someone pls take screenshots and make a pdf out of it.

>>49142558
Tried selecting USSR and USA but it only let me chose one so I went for REEEEEEEEEEE.

>>49141718
Write a mail to customer support and get a new box.

Do we know who's getting the next book after the NVA?

>>49146033
How can it NOT be another Nato book?

>>49146033
>>49146055
Scuttlebutt says it's another Warsaw Pact book. So I'd guess Poles or Czechs.

>>49146055

I dunno, doing 2 WarPac nations in a row would even out the roster, and aside from France most of the remaining NATO nations are just going to be regurgitating the same equipment over and over just like most of the eastern bloc.

>>49146109
I hope it's Czechs, just for their high pun potential.

Where the fuck is the FoW digital app on an android system?

And how do I extract a book?

>>49146033
Group of Soviet Forces Germany

>>49146141
Then again, they hardly demand Pole position for being introduced.

>>49146156

That'll be all the first echelon soviet units with the best toys right?

I'd rather run a swarm of T-62s honestly - sure their armour and RoF is bad, but the gun itself can knock anything short of a Challenger or Leo 2 on its ass.

>>49146200
Yeah, Guard Divisions with either T64 or T80. T62's were all sent back to Russia by the 80s so they'd be a part of the 2nd or 3rd waves.

>>49139419
You forgot waiting for non-NATO/Warpac.

>>49146371
So did Battlefront.

>>49146313

Guess I'll just have to buckle down and shit Svirs all over the place.

Seriously though, if I don't at least get that I will be disappointed.

http://www.wwpd.net/2016/09/team-yankee-contest-eat-at-wolfgangs.html?spref=fb

>Battlefront has made a Wolfgang's Bratty Van mini but they're not selling it, rather using it for promotion.

FUUUUUUUUUUU-

>>49142809
I was relistening to the old panzefunk state of the union episode. One of the Funkmeisters mentioned having a wave attack rule for Soviets, like what strelkovy get in Rising Sun. I think a rule like thatcould make the CT/CC T-55 swarm playable. Give a chance for a reserve unit to come in once one is destroyed.

>>49146505
> Knows where every unit is during exercises
> Appears to be unassuming bratwurst peddler
So he was actually an international spy and man of mystery right?

>>49146598
Lord knows, but he was a legend to BAOR squaddies and tankers.

>>49146507

They could give us the upgraded T-55M/T-55AM instead. Laser rangefinder, gun stabilizer, BDD on the turret and hull front, and the Bastion ATGM might keep it competitive with newer tanks, especially if ERA is included.

File: Wolfgang%201_zpsd4pamvqt.jpg (87KB, 1024x611px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1024x611px

>>49146634
>he was a legend to BAOR squaddies and tankers.

Damn straight

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/wolfgang-of-soltau-schnellie-wagon-fame.28515/
http://www.militarymodelling.com/forums/postings.asp?th=82235

>>49146666

I'm having trouble figuring out when most of the modernization would have taken place, and what countries were using the modernized tanks. ERA basically would put the T-55 on par with the T-72 against heat which is nice.

>>49146861
Well the T-55M/AM could the fire the Bastion which didn't come about until 1981? so the early to mid 80's.

File: wolfgang.jpg (41KB, 974x510px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 974x510px

>>49146786

>>49146967

TY is '85 right? Seems like they'd be a decent enough fit.

>>49147271
Either 1984 or '85. I forget which.

How are Panthers as an addition to a late war SS list? I'm running a Grey Wolf 3rd Totenkopf mechanised list but I'm torn between Panthers and some Tiger 1s. I mean the better question would be how are Tigers and Panthers in general?

>>49128299
east germans will need their own infantry sprues

>>49146172

Czech you privlege, white eagle!

>>49148540
>how are Tigers and Panthers in general
overpriced

>>49148803
Hussar for puns, they are truly the best humour!

File: 2944208.jpg (57KB, 667x800px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 667x800px

>>49148775
Well I guess they wouldn't be doing a book for them if they weren't going to sell minis for it.

File: KIMG0021.jpg (801KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 1600x1200px

>we Budapest now

>>49150912
I think you could do with more terrain.

>>49150912
Why do people play on such tiny tables?

>>49151702
It looks like it's probably about 6' X 4'.

Although it does seem a bit empty.

>>49151810
I moved the terrain in a bit. Also the matt was 6" too wide, which we ficex

>>49151810
I have a 3x2m table and it still feels to small.

I'm hoping you degenerates will be able to help me out. Team Yankee is my first FoWlike game and I've played a few games with the starter boxes. Whatsa a good points value to aim for from here?

It looks like 100 points would be nice but what the generally accepted number?

>>49152633
>what the generally accepted number?
As much as your wallet.

>>49152633
100 is what people tend to play for TY. For FoW it varies by period.

>>49151702
Most tables are narrower than the recommended width of 4'/120cm.

>>49150912
Get yourself some cheap mdf buildings and fill that table up lad

File: 1472507415670.jpg (2MB, 2560x1571px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1571px

Begin Emergency BMPing procedure.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Like Hungariboo said, we condensed the table a bit and it played out well. All that terrain is his stuff. Western Kentucky is a desert for wargaming. Considering we had multiple people come up and ask us if we were playing 40K, I was happy with our setup.

Soviet hero assault sappers are a really strong backbone for a force. Finding the points for support is an issue. We played 1500 points and I didn't bring enough to take care of the assault pancakes. My heavy mortars fired duds, bailing several tanks, but only killing one Zrinyi amd one infantry stand.

Hungariboo did a great job using recce, and I wasn't able to get a good ambush with my Zis-3s. My cheap support units lead to my downfall. The Hungarians were able to isolate and pick them off, causing me to fail a morale check. It was still a fun match, and I'd love to try hero sappers again with some different support, even if I have to drop a platoon in one of my companies.

File: 1467837348108.jpg (372KB, 2244x1496px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 2244x1496px

>http://www.wwpd.net/2016/08/the-world-of-team-yankee.html
>The M-1 is a hard tank to destroy with none being destroyed by enemy tank fire in the 1991 Gulf war and few being knocked out permanently by the Iraqi’s in 2003. Even in 2003, US Abrams took direct hits from Iraqi T-72’s and none of them led to catastrophic loss.

You wrong piece of shit Mitch Reed.
Literally anyone with even the slightest hint of Military knowledge knows that the Iraqis had shit grade T-72s with shot out barrels and hideous levels of inefficiency with regards to repair and training. Saying that this proves that the M1 was well armoured is like saying that the IS-3 was a good tank because the Japanese couldn't knock any out during fighting in Manchuria.

The fucking Republican Guard, the Iraqi Army's Elite unit still had fucking Mild Steel Training ammo loaded for Gulf War II, and overall the Iraqi Army pissed their T-72s away by using them literally in the opposite fashion that the Soviets intended them to be used.

Goddamn I mad.

>>49157114
And it's time for this weeks episode of asshole theatre, starring Biased Revisionism, and Subjective Examples!

File: Hitler_Youth_glasses.jpg (147KB, 736x981px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 736x981px

>>49148861 (you)

>>49157114
Yeah, but by your standards the M1 (or any NATO tanks for that matter) never came up against any "real" T-72s.

This is the closest we have to go by.

>>49157727
An army of Arabs with substandard equipment shouldn't be regarded as an acceptable yard stick to measure the Abrams against. Even by the standards of Middle Eastern conflicts the Iraqi army was bad. They'd make the UAR look good.

>>49157841
Which demonstrates that the M1 should have worse armour. Oh wait.

>>49148540
Panthers are very expensive pts wise for most lists. While they have a powerful gun and good front armor, theyre very much a one trick pony due to weaker side and top armor. Panthers want to park somewhere, face the enemy, and trade shots. They make poor assaulting tanks, lack the ROF to tackle hordes of armor, and don't have the super guns to engage the heaviest tanks.

Usually I find they work best as confident trained as a core, or a s support for lighter vehicles that can't quite handle a head to head slugging match.

As for tigers, theyre very expensive LW for what they do. A single King Tiger will almost always accomplish more than two tiger I E's and cost less to boot.

Both can be made to work if used with a list that leverages their strengths, but it can be tricky.

>>49156942
>Hungariboo did a great job using recce

If you mean accidentally placing them in a good spot after zerg rushing your mortars, yeah I'm a tactical genius.

Also, the amount of people asking if we were playing 40k made me die a little inside. I knew the area was mostly card players but damn if that didn't drive the point home.


On to the game, the dice really did screw your mortars. Only one penetrated top armor on a Zrínyi and it bailed, which for an AT 4 2+ bombardment is ridiculous. I shouldve lost 5 Zrinyis, including my commander, but the dice spared me time and again.

Also, the game was mostly decided at deployment. Like you said at the end, instead of ambushing with the zis 3's, you probably should've deployed the second sapper company. With only one on the table, I parked my Toldis on the open objective and forced his men to come at me. By making the sappers leave the cover of the factory, I was able to murder them in the open.

Other than that not a whole lot that could have been changed. Turns out Zrinyis just have super armor when it comes to everything, and even an ISU hitting one point blank just ended up with a bail. And when the Hungarians almost never fail a morale check in regards to bail checks, it just makes it worse.

I've had a lot of trouble coming up with a good list for the FV sappers. The tanks available are all difficult fits, don't provide good synergy, or just aren't very good. Honestly I'm thinking that if I ran it, I would just stick with infantry and gun teams. Load up my infantry for bear, bring zis 2's, tons of mortars, and just dig in and say "come at me bro."

Mid War thoughts: 1380 points.

Five KV-2s, and twenty T-26s for a Mixed Tankovy core choices yes/no?

>>49157114
Don't worry, anyone who posts bullshit like that here is gonna get flooded with ameribears.

>>49160343
Yes. Muh gawd, yuhhsss...

>>49160343
Toss in a cheap 4th platoon, and you would be set.

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

1B, 486x500px

>>49162056
>>49162096
I came up with a decent list I think, drawing on the results of my last engagement with Soviets. Having hopefully learned something from my last Soviet List.

Point One: Conscript artillery cannot hit anything other than the Ground. And even that may take some time.
Point Two: Heavy Tanks are cool.
Point Three: Who knows what people are fielding at this low points limit?

>>49162150
Yes! You have to do this. Do you have 20 T-26s? You will have a slow rolling wall of kaboom.

I think my next purchase is going to be some Valentines for early and mid war tankovy. Maybe T-26s if I can't find a good valentine plastic kit.

File: 2016-09-03 16.13.29.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

>>49150912

You call that a city?

File: 2016-09-03 15.42.44.jpg (2MB, 2322x4128px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2322x4128px

>>49162480

File: 2016-09-03 16.13.19.jpg (4MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4128x2322px

>>49162485

Huh, that one was blurry. Sorry.

>>49162444
I don't, but an associate does!

>>49162480
>>49162485
>>49162491

Also, sorry, I've realised that made me come across as a bit of a dick.

Anyway, we had a mid-War, Stalingrad-ish event yesterday, and while I would have liked to have crammed even more terrain onto the table, I think it worked.

Plus the rules were that all spaces other that roads were full of rubble, and thus gave bulletproof cover to Gone-to-Ground Infantry and Man Packed Gun teams. (NB this makes Cautious Movement amazing)

>>49162491
>Soviet style blocks
>Adobe huts

where the fuck is this even meant to be?

>>49162573
Al-Stalingrad

>>49157496
Are you saying that Iraq's tank fleet was in any way comparable to that of the actual soviets?

>>49157727
Yeah, it's true, but it still doesn't tell us a whole lot for that reason. Also remember a lot of their tanks were T-55s, T-62s, and their scratch-build "Lion of Babylon", which is the chinese bootleg of tanks.

>>49157958
I should hope it has worse armour than it did in the gulf war given that DU mesh didn't start until 1988.

>>49162514
Very nice! I am working on some long term plans for a Stalingrad. I was planning on gridding out a map with the main points of interest (red square, the grain silos, the red october factory), with a pick up game format.

Urban rules can get a bit messey, especially with assaults and artillery. Were there any other special rules you all used?

>>49162497
The Chaika is also a little death machine. Last game I played with it, Chaika support destroyed an entire PZ IV platoon with rockets. At the very least they should scare your opponent.

>>49162611
They also had legit chinese bootleg Type-59s, it was a fucking dog's breakfast.

>>49162573

Anatolia. It was a speculative scenario following a German-backed coup so that we could bring in Western Allies as well as Soviets and Axis for a city fight.

File: image.jpg (80KB, 600x361px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x361px

Just remembered that there's no 15 mm plastic kit for the Valentine. I guess I could hold out hope for the revamp of midwar... but I don't think we'll get it.

>>49163377
Could ask PSC to look into it.

>>49163617
I think it would sell. Valentines show up in several books across multiple theatres.

>>49157114

Yeah. These are the idiots who kept firing their artillery at empty ground, when all they had to do was adjust their fire a hundred odd meters... because their chain of command was so bloody fucked its hilarious. Say your an Iraqi Company Commander and you want to manuever your tanks to avoid incoming artillery. To do that... you had to ask your battalion commander, he had to ask his brigade commander, he had to ask his divisional commander...

>>49163377
I want plastic Valentines so much.

>>49163699
>>49163896
I wouldn't be surprised if Zvezda make one eventually (with the caveat it'll probably be a variant used on the Eastern Front)

Do we have an ETA on the Zvezda King Tiger? I want to make my budget Kampfgruffe Kerscher list, goddamnit.

>>49164116
Is it going to be a Porsche or Henschel King Tiger?

>>49164557
Henschel

File: KIMG0022.jpg (833KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 1600x1200px

>tfw your 100% plastic kit comes with resin command teams

Why

File: 1472093715852.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

>>49115268
> No Challenger 1.

>>49162480
Anon, where is the walls, fences, and trees, and ditches and...?

>>49166259
>Battlefront

Does anyone remember somebody posting a comparison of what stuff was in a PSC/Battlefront Brit infantry company, ie what there was enough of/what was left over from making a typical infantry company? I was hoping I could maybe use some surplus chaps as minis for Chain of Command or something.

File: Brit Inf - BF vs PSC.png (11KB, 432x243px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 432x243px

>>49166951
That was me. Here's the image, have fun

>>49167036
Interesting. It looks like buying one of each would actually mean I could address the NCO shortage with the PSC box set and still have 2 companies and a decent amount of leftovers for motor platoons/pioneers or whatever. What was the metric for the list you were using as a basis, HQ & 3 platoons?

>>49167157
HQ and 3 platoons, that's right.
If I remember correctly, I assumed 1 officer, 1 NCO (defined as "someone with an SMG") and 1 "Communications" (either a radio guy or a messenger, since BF provides 6 radiomen while PSC 3 messengers and 3 Radiomen). Each platoon would have 3 squads, and each squad would have 1 NCO, 1 Bren gunner and 7 Riflemen (spread of two bases, 4+5 figures). And then of course a PIAT and a Light Mortar for each platoon.

Of course, when I di it, I'll go with only 8 guys per squad (group them 4+4), meaning I'll have even more Riflemen left over.

>>49167372
Thanks for clearing that up! So I can have both a British and Canadian company, and a semi decent collection of leftover Tommies for possible Skirmish games.


I'm rather facing another conundrum - I have a company of starter Grenadiers from Open Fire that I want to make into Hungarians. But I also want to make a Grenadier platoon for my Kapfgruffe Kerscher list - I'm thinking just buying one or two of the Panzergrenadier sprues would give me enough dudes for that, correct? Then I could buy a PSC German heavy weapons box for the weapons teams.

What would the 1980's war radio soundtrack be?

>>49172194
I'll add a track.
Everybody Wants to Rule the World - Tears for Fears

>>49166259
To keep you humble.

>>49172194
It's a year after Team Yankee's start date, but,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw

File: U.S._Army_during_REFORGER_'82.jpg (3MB, 2880x1910px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2880x1910px

>>49172194

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58QOBqAWNzE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbJQbiu09z8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baXUge30beg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y98-ksHnjE4

one for each faction

>>49174138
>danger zone

not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAdgt5Glk0

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1tj2zJ2Wvg

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbLMrce7OJI

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT516h7QwA4

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcf7DnHi54g

it's like you can't even into 80s or something.

File: stuglyfe.jpg (61KB, 640x437px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x437px

Upcoming tournament at my FLGS. LW Italy, 1625. Rate my list.

Fortress Italy, Germany, 362nd Grenadierkompanie

HQ: CinC SMG, 2iC SMG (45 pts)

Compulsory Grenadier Platoon: Command Rifle/MG (Upgrade to Panzerfaust/ SMG), 6x Rifle/MG (165 pts)

Compulsory Grenadier Platoon: Command Rifle/MG (Upgrade to Panzerfaust/ SMG), 6x Rifle/MG (165 pts)

Grenadier Machine-gun Platoon: Command SMG, 2x MG42 HMG (70 pts)

Grenadier Mortar Platoon: Command SMG, Observer Rifle, 2x 8cm GW34 mortar (65 pts)

Grenadier Anti-Tank Gun Platoon: Command SMG, 2x PaK 40 7.5cm gun (105 pts)

Schwere Panzer Platoon: Command Tiger 1 E (215 pts)

HG Assault Gun Platoon: Command StuG G, 2x StuG G (Replace 3x StuG G with StuH 42) (295 pts)

Motorised Artillery Battery: Command SMG, Staff, 2x Observer Rifle, 2x Kubelwagen, 4x 10.5cm IeFH18 howitzer (210 pts)

HG Heavy Anti-Aircraft Gun Platoon: Command SMG, 2x 8.8cm FlaK36 gun, (2x Extra Crew) (190 pts)

Air Support: Sporadic Ju-87D (100 pts)

>>49176460
A single Tiger on it's on in Late War is more of a hindrance than anything. It can be one shot by a lot of guns now.

>>49176629
What should I replace it with?

>>49176751
Buncha Panthers, Reserve Panthers, King Tiger on it's own is quite good, Jam in another Tiger.

Also you need to increase the number of AT guns and mortars in their platoons if possible. Start by stripping out the Artillery Battery and replacing it with some nebelwerfers.

>>49176890
Don't have nebs. That's the max number of AT guns I have too. Can't get KTs in Italy.

>>49177424
Also I'm not actually playing in the tournament. I will not be able to attend but I'm helping others get ready for the tournament before hand by being an opponent for them.

>>49172194
Frankie Goes to Hollywood - Two Tribes

>>49157114
So you're not actually disagreeing with anything he said.

Believe me, I do get your point, but the M1's record (M1A1's?) is still that good. Iraq DID have T-72s and, well, let's just say they never reached the level of Americans in Tunisia.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-20-17-56-53.png (157KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 720x1280px

>>49130438
Gotcha buddy
i hope it's the correct snapshot

File: 2016-09-05 09.38.26.png (282KB, 712x1223px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 712x1223px

>>49180307
Fuck here's the correct one

>>49163377
They're looking back into the desert next year, apparently, so might be some hope for it then.

File: Churchill IV (NA 75).png (668KB, 763x766px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 763x766px

>>49180331
> Infantry Tank List
> No Infantry
Delicious irony.

Anyone know a seller for greatcoat PTRD teams? Between Peter Pig and Battlefront it seems like most infantry can be gotten in greatcoats, but there only seems to be one kind of PTRD team.

>>49179889
You mean the record that's currently being shit all over by retarded Iraqi tankers in export M1A1s right now?

The argument is not that the M1A1 is not better than the T72A/M/M1.

It's that the Gulf War being used as a yardstick for the performance of Warsaw Pact gear despite the raft of reasons that arabs are shit tier at modern war and you could give them any gear and they'd still fail.

>>49181582

Except the original post in this clusterfuck of a chain was responding to a point of the resilience of the Abrams. The Gulf War doesn't change the fact that it's a pretty tough tank by 1985 standards.

>>49179889
Iraq had a small number of T-72s that had been left to rot for decades with terrible maintenance, fighting in an actively harmful command situation, using obsolete (sometimes even training) ammunition. Some sources I read claim the Iraqis were using shells, which have been obsolete for decades. The coalition tanks, meanwhile, were numerous, all heavily upgraded versions of their cold-war selves, in excellent condition, with the very latest in ammunition technology, excellent reconnaissance and leadership, total air superiority...

There is nothing close to a representation of a soviet-US combat in the Gulf war except for the names of the tanks.

>>49181597
The M1A1 in 1993 is definitely tough by 1985's standards, yes. This doesn't actually mean anything, though.

>>49181617
It was the 3BM9, which was developed in 1968. The soviets stopped using it in the 70s.

It's worth noting that Iraq's T-55s destroyed Chieftains in the Iran-Iraq war, so it's maybe best not to overhype anything that's come out of the arab wars.

>>49181666
It looks like I was wrong, it was 1962. To clarify, the 3BM9 is a sabot round, it's just steel and not very good (by the standards of either 1985 or 1991).

In 1985 the 3BM32 had just come out, which was penning 500mm at 2km, over double that of the 3BM9.

File: image.jpg (60KB, 352x500px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 352x500px

>>49181110
I hope so too, but I am going to rage if we don't get valentines, but get a box of matildas or shitty crusaders.

>>49181440
I think your best bet is going to be gun swapping the DP mg for an AT rifle on some teams. Or you could paint them wearing the Telogreika coat

>>49181582
>export M1A1s
Which use crappier steel armour instead of the actual Abrams' fancy composite armour.

>>49181597
The M1A1 sure, but the M1 had a smaller gun, and worse armour.

What's the secret to beating infantry companies? They're pretty much impossible to assault with tanks with all the squad AT and a little work with HMGs makes them almost immune to infantry too.

File: 1230561291626.jpg (267KB, 2048x1701px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 2048x1701px

The General point I was trying to stab towards to, was that the Author of the think piece was a dumb shit for using an example that does not adequately represent the T-72 as a fighting vehicle and then lauding the M1 Abrams as a God Tank because of the poor showing it's enemies gave to it.

The Abrams is represented fine in Team Yankee, it is the yard stick by which Western MBTs must be measured by.
Iraqi T-72s weren't maintained, weren't equipped with proper ammunition and were used by fucking retards with an ass-backwards command system and poor tactical leadership. It's like if you judged the Panther by the initial Asuf D model exclusively with it's poor Hull MG, violently flammable engine, shot trap turret and insufficient side armour. It's performance at Kursk would make it the worst tank in the German arsenal, if judged by that standard alone.

>>49181889
>Which use crappier steel armour instead of the actual Abrams' fancy composite armour.
Our point exactly (specifically they're absent the DU, I haven't read that they don't have chobham).

>>49182022
Breakthrough guns and flamethrowers do really well at killing dug in infantry. Artillery can be effective at ponning and weakening infantry positions, epsecially for dense formations of conscripts. Carefully planning out your assault with smoke can help you minimize the amount of defensive fire you take.

>>49182041
The Panther didn't improve hugely in that respect, though. It stopped literally catching fire but reliability was never more than subpar, to the point where they were trumpeting revolutionary breakthroughs that got the Panther to the lofty reliability heights of british cruiser tanks.

>>49182189
I assume you mean the Early to Mid War ones right? The Cromwell and Comet were actually pretty reliable tanks, not Sherman reliable but the Sherman might be one of the most reliable (and also easiest to fix when it did break) tanks ever made.

You're right that they never really did fix any of those issues with the Panther. They also never improved its abysmal crew ergonomics or how awful it was to perform maintenance on. 50mm of side armour isn't really much better than 40 on a tank the size of a Panther either, especially when there's a whole bunch of ammunition stored right behind it.

>>49182255
Yeah, the EW ones. I kind of mentally file the Cromwell and Comet as mediums because the British had largely stopped pretending they were cavalry squadrons by the time they got to the battlefield.

>>49181765
Wouldn't the lack of ribbing be kind of visible?

Also isn't that soviet khaki anyway?

File: Another 11th AD Divisional HQ Tank.jpg (79KB, 736x737px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 736x737px

>>49182273
The Brits had stopped almost entirely with the actual Balaclava Charge style Cavalry tactics for Cruisers by the time the Crusader got to North Africa and they were completely done away with by the time Mk. IIIs were showing up. Instead the Cruisers were used more to act as Recce/forward elements on the attack, often flanking, pursuing or ambushing enemy elements thanks to their high speed and small size. I think the reasons Cromwells and Comets didn't really get used in that way have more to do with the nature of tank warfare in Europe as opposed to North Africa. It's actually kind of a shame the Cromwell never got to see action in North Africa, it would've been in its element.

>>49181631

Either way, it's TY stats are fine.

>>49182022
>with all the squad AT

But so many platoons either don't have any, or have really crappy organic AT? Hell, French and Finns don't get any, and the Brits and Germans only have a single ATR. Soviets might have some Sappers. That's not driving shit back.

>>49182572
Germans have entire platoons of Panzerfausts, and the American best-case is 3 bazookas. Nobody plays soviets and only I play brits, and I have a hell of a time breaking through.

Have a thing:
T-55AM - FA 12/SA 8/TA 2
BDD Armor* - IR
Hit on 3+
Courage 4+ / Skill 5+
Morale 3+ / Assault 5+
Remount 3+ / Counter Attack 4+
Tactical 10"/Terrain Dash 14"/Cross Country Dash 20"/Road Dash 24"/Crossing 3+
100mm D10T Range 32" RoF 1 Halted/ 1 Moving -AT 18 FP 3+- Laser Rangefinder, Stabilizer
9M117 Bastion Range 8"- 48" RoF 1 Halted/ - Moving -AT 21 FP 3+- Guided, Heat
12.7mm AA MG Range 20" RoF 3 Halted/ 2 Moving -AT 4 FP5+-
7.62 MG Range 16" RoF 1 Halted/ 1 Moving -AT 2 FP6+-
*BDD Armor boosts FA and SA to 13

Note that I boosted the gun to AT 18 from the 16 we all know to represent more modern ammo.

>>49182686

Whoops, the firepower on the D10T should be 2+ not 3.

>>49182554
Yeah, exactly. The article's point was that the M1 was under-armoured in TY, because they were reporting on the stats of a different tank fighting shitty opposition. If anything the Abrams' armour is a bit high (though that's nothing compared to the joke of the chieftain's).

>>49182686

Spotted another typo - BDD is FA and SA 13 vs HEAT.

>>49182284
It ranged from typical soviet khaki, to a somewhat greenish hue. I am using soviet green armor spray from TY to base my PSC weapons and gun teams that don't have great coats. I get the point about the ribbing though. I've left it off just to get them table ready. Maybe you could undercoat the verticle a few verticle lines in black after the first thin basecoat. Then when you put your second basecoat on, hopefully it will show up as a shaded region.

>>49182882
Those ridges are really fine though so maybe you'd have to score them in with a hobby knife, so a wash will sit in the recesses or use a very fine pen to try to ink them on.

>>49182745
I think the problem is that the guys at WWPD act like they're authorities on the subject, when they actually aren't.

At least Panzerfunk openly admits that they're just a bunch of chucklefucks with a podcast.

>>49183037
Well the other guys maybe~

>>49182167
>(specifically they're absent the DU, I haven't read that they don't have chobham).
I honestly can't imagine the US would export anything with Chobham to arabs. They're liable to turn around and sell it to someone we don't want reverse engineering it.

>>49182745
They should have given the Brits Challengers, it's set in 1985 isn't it?

>>49183821
The Brits had a grand total of 2 tank battalions equipped with Challies in 85, one of those back home in Britain.
The vast majority of troops were still equipped with the Chieftain.

Breakthrough Assault have actually done a decently interesting article about the announced British gear earlier this week.

>>49183970
Sure, but the majority of US tanks were still Super Pattons as well, and the Chieftain's stats are crazy.

>>49183970
I agree that there should be a mix like the Germans but ultimately once total war breaks out production would go through the roof.

I can understand why they kept the L1A1 but I think they should have had both Chieftains and Challengers at launch.

>>49184365
>but ultimately once total war breaks out production would go through the roof.

Of course, but we're not at the stage in the alternate timeline yet. BF is laying down forces right now by what they would historically be fielding in 1985 if war broke out.

No doubt if the game's still getting releases in a few years we'll have all sorts of toys fielded ahead of our timeline.

>>49175296
>it's like you can't even into 80s or something.
>mostly Metallica.

i was going for shit the average dick would listen to.
we tend to forget how bad they old taste buds were back then.

Metallica used to be bad dues only.

File: eddie has priority air support.jpg (3MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1200px

>>49183970
>breakthrough assault

File: 19.png (175KB, 227x289px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 227x289px

>>49184424
tfw you invent Chobham armour but the Americans and Germans are the only TY factions that use it.

File: sonofsherman.jpg (1MB, 638x825px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 638x825px

Someone have a pdf of this book?
Or could make one?

>>49186198
>Son of Sherman
>When you count too many rivets and sexually identify as a Jumbo
Sadly it costs a hundred bucks so I'm doubtful we'll ever find out what's going on in this book.

File: image.jpg (52KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x450px

Guys, PSC got back to me about the plastic Valentines...

It's not on the coming soon page yet, but there will be a plastic Valentine kit from PSC early next year.

File: proof.png (114KB, 599x491px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 599x491px

>>49187379

>>49187379
Perhaps in time for Valentines Day?

It would be a bad pun, but it's too obvious to ignore.

>>49187379
Ask them about Easy Eights! Ask them about Easy Eights before it wears off!

>>49187379
Pardon my ignorance but...what is that in the picture? Siege mortar on a Valentine chassis?

Also: yay for plastic Valentines!

>>49189909
Yep, it's a 9.75 inch flame mortar. I don't think it made it past trials, but it could lob 25 lbs of incindiaries to burn out bunkers or entrenchments.

>>49187567
I guess time will tell won't it?

>>49188591
If I remember I am definitely going to flood the thread with Valentines on valentine's day.

>>49188613
I just sent an email to the address on their contact page. Will got back to me the very next day. I was jawdropped that they were actually planning on Valentine's so I don't want to press my luck.

>>49191316
Awww. I want plastic Easy Eights. And Chaffees.

>>49191544
All you need for E8s is a new track sprue. I've suggested it before, kind of surprised they haven't done it.

>>49191316
Yeah, Will is surprisingly responsive lately. I remember a few years ago when getting ahold of him was like pulling teeth, he's had the time for a brief chat even lately.

>>49192114
Don't that have slightly wider track guards or something? I know someone else brought it up in an earlier thread when I floated stick some of the HVSS they already sell on a plastic Sherman.

>>49192263
Even though, an addition of upper hull would be enough for an E8. I'd suggest 2 pieces track for each tracks divided in half, representing double pinned tracks.

One of the things I'm surprised didn't find it's way in is christie tracks for the Cruisers box, since AFAIK it's literally the only difference between the A9/10s and A13, and there's no source for those that isn't resin.

bolt action player looking to move into fow here.

was looking at the official guides for painting germans. seems a little over the top for 15mm. 3 tones of green? will it show up at that scale? i fear i don't have the skills for painting 15mm anyway...

>>49195415
I can't speak for everyone here, but I usually do a basecoat and one or two colors for webbing. Washing and a little drybrushing over the webbing is typically all you need for it to look good at this scale.

>>49195415
>show up
Sure. But that's really extra effort. 2 would be fine. A base coat, a wash, then a dry brush is as far as I usually go. Or hell, one and a wash.
>skills
Yeah you do. If you can do 28mm, you can do 15mm. There's less need for fiddly crap at that scale, so in a way, it's easier. They're tiny, so you can really bang them out.

Alternatively, go with a mostly tank force.

>>49195015
>One of the things I'm surprised didn't find it's way in is christie tracks for the Cruisers box, since AFAIK it's literally the only difference between the A9/10s and A13, and there's no source for those that isn't resin.
Zvezda's "Crusader" is really an A13.

>>49195691
aight. cool. thanks for the advice guys.

whats everyones opinion on the new army boxes. i was looking at montys hounds or rommels poodles.

>>49198562
>montys hounds
Are you an experienced player?

No?

Then Monty's Hounds is probably going to be a mistake to get. The two unit types inside (Comets and British Motor infantry) are both fragile and have small unit sizes, while being fairly expensive. Despite that, it has the least points of equipment of all the starting boxes. So you get less points than the other boxes (meaning it will take longer to have a normal-sized army), and what you do get are very tricky to use units that are not in any way forgiving to a new player.

I really hate to say it, as a british player with a RL love of Comets, but for Flames that box is just garbage.

hey guys I got a box of Zis 2/3 guns

How should I build them? Zis 3's are everywhere but Zis 2's seem a lot more reliable and useful for AT Work

File: FoW Grenadier_P1_EN_41.jpg (76KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x424px

>>49195415
Just paint them like this and you'll be fine.

>>49200348
Why do they have painted nails? Was the Wehrmacht really that fabulous?

File: KIMG0026.jpg (901KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 1600x1200px

Huh, magnetizing the panther/Jagdpanther box was way easier than I thought it would be.

Used 4 magnets by the time you count the magnetized turret, but it works. I guess you could just have the turret permanently attached by tab, but I like to be able to remove mine.

>>49200443
Because he could anon.

99% of the time thats the answer.

The other 1% is autism

File: image.jpg (249KB, 700x328px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 700x328px

>>49200348
2bh I'm not actually much of a fan of those, they look nice up close but it looks like a painting style more suitable for 1/35 infantry than 15mm, and I'd imagine that the detail disappears completely at tabletop, or even non-magnifying glass distance.

>>49183253

I'll even admit to being a chucklefuck who doesn't play games.

>>49182679
>Pfausts
Only in LW.

>>49198930
What era do you primarily play? Do you primarily plan on using them as AT? The Zis-2 is a good AT gun choice at every Era. If want to play the God of War battery or for some reason exclusively play midwar then the Zis-3 is also a good choice.

I bought 1 box of each from PSC. The Zis-2 can be a bit expensive in certain MW or LW hero lists.

>>49198562
The Rommel box is okay but not great.

>>49201393
It's probably best to assume he's playing LW lists, then. Not everyone has every era in their meta.

>>49201664

Not everyone plays much LW, either. To say nothing of the ridiculousness of not mentioning period when asking for advice.

>>49202009
If someone goes "Hey, I'm having trouble with assaults, because there's lots of MGs and integral antitank", going "This isn't a problem in early war finnish/german matchups so you're just bad" is fucking autistic. Someone who's said that is obviously talking LW Germans and Americans.

My $0.02 for what it's worth...

Reading for context is an important skill. You can infer a lot based on clues in the post.

But at the same time, more information is always useful. The period, the army type, the nationality, etc are all useful to know.

On the flip side however, it's impossible to know everything. You can say "I'm playing the 123rd Regiment, do you have any advice?" And people may not know the first thing about the 123rd.

>>49200460
the absolute madman!

Since I started this: Yeah, we play almost entirely LW, usually 1750 but recently mostly 1420. Most people play some flavour of German or the yanks. Almost everyone plays infantry, we tend to play historically plausible matchups, we almost entirely play western front. I am, to my knowledge, the first person who's playing Brits here.

>>49202813
Typical terrible American meta, then?
Try smoke. And pinning, that particularly fucks ROF1 guns like Bazookas and PFs. Barring that, in LW you're ass deep in Breakthrough guns and cheap arty, so maybe take advantage of that. Barring that, sit back and shoot, with a bit of recon support. You can probably scrape off a few infantry stands a turn with just your tanks, let alone with everything else opening up.

>>49202356

He said HMGs, which are all over the war. And integrated AT could mean a bunch of things, particularly for a noob, which he seems to be regardless of period. Anyone that says 'pretty much impossible to assault' is going to get fucked up by a few Boys/Piats/ MW Bazookas/close ATGs as well.

>>49202813
Right. LW Brits... you're moderately boned?

More seriously, you're low on the goto #1 solution, Breakthrough Guns (or Bunker Busters). Solution #2 is Flame Throwers. Can your preferred list get Churchill Crocodiles or Wasps (as an upgrade of a Carrier Patrol)?

More general solution: Lift Gone to Ground with your recce (you have recce, right? If not, redo from start, include recce), then kill any and all gun teams nearby (HMGs, Anti-tank guns, what have they). Once that's done, smoke and pin the offending platoon, or at least the part you want to assault(you do have something that gives you a smoke bombardment, right? If not, redo from start, include something that gives you smoke). Usually, enough machine gun fire will pin most things. If you feel that you do not have enough MGs, pin with bombardment, smoke when he fails to unpin). Finally, assault with something that he's less likely to repel (if he's toting a bajillion integrated AT, get an infantry platoon to do the work, if he's got MG teams, use tanks... if he's got Pf/MG teams, pray to the dice gods and assult with either after whittling them down a few rounds more). Good news, you're british: you're statistically likely to stay in the assault until he runs away, unless he's got his Company Commander where you're assaulting (try not to assault where he's got his CC).

>>49203364
>Barring that, in LW you're ass deep in Breakthrough guns
>Brits
>Breakthrough guns
lolno

I hope someone's prepared to start the new thread. I'm away from my computer, so can't provide, sadly...

>>49203525
Yeah, I have both recce and smoke, and I use them, but HMGs still seem to kick out far too many defensive fire dice.

I could shift to a list that brings crocs/wasps, though, which might soften those platoons up enough to lower the MG dice.

New thread:
>>49204875

>>49205123
Someone want to do one with the correct title?