Flames of War General: Now with more flames! Edition

File: IMG_2966.jpg (340KB, 936x817px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 936x817px

Panzerfunk Episode 20 is now available!

http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/e/panzerfunk-episode-20-the-battle-for-north-africa/

In this episode the Funkmeisters discuss their thoughts and opinions on the Afrika Korps and Desert Rats books, the Command Cards and Fog of War Cards, Their criticisms of Flames of War 4th Edition so far, and answer questions from the audience about Flames of War and Team Yankee.

Check it out.

>>54189592

Thankyou for this. I don't think I'm going to have time to listen until the weekend, but this gives me something to look forward to.

File: 00-chechen-fighters-2008-s-ossetia.jpg (185KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1200x900px

Someone not lazy made the thread, aww yeah.

>>54190424
Not a problem. Hope you enjoy it.

>>54191851
To be fair, I was being lazy about it most of the day too.

But the new episode of Panzerfunk kinda required me to start a new FoW thread.

Even if only for shameless self-promotion.

>>54189592
>On the "most of the haters only hate because it removes their cheese" comments in there:
My 25pdrs and AOP went from decent to invincible teleporting spotter and 4+ FP palls of doom. My infantry will almost never break with 5 combat+weapons platoons full of 3+ saves at FV. I have two full platoons of 6pdrs that went from pretty good to basically gods against all these tanks. My opponents love medium armor (raped by 6pdrs and unable to kill them now), heavy artillery (overpointed to hell now), and rocket/bomb planes (invincible but crap now).

I know how to adapt, quite well, and in fact it's EASIER to cheese now. My issues are that it's even less of a historical simulation than it was before (Little 3" mortars do as much damage as said 25pdrs and somehow can also use the AOP's intel, when the AOP wasn't even on the same set of radio networks, CS tanks that carried a 90% Smoke load IRL can now only do it once per game, 10s of flame thrower use is now an entire battle, etc...), the various annoying mechanics decisions (why copy TY morale and command distance, those were the worst parts), and BF's botched rollout and poor community interaction.

>On "hitting on 7s and 8s makes up for the removal of Eyes and Ears":
I'm sorry, but no. Just no. To get one hit on average against the enemy, you need:
>3 shots on 5s
>6 shots on 6s
>18 shots on 7s
Or, put another way
>18 shots on 7s averages 1 hit
>18 shots on 6s averages 3 hits
>18 shots on 5s averages 6 hits
So if you had 6 shots on 6s normally, you'd get 1 hit, and Eyes and Ears would double the hits to 2 hits. In order for being able to shoot on 7s to cause the same improvement, you'd need to add *18* more shots on top of the 6 hitting on 6s. 8s are irrelevant at 36 shots to average one hit. They in NO WAY make up for the removal of E&E. If Flamethrowers, Breakthrough/Bunker Buster, and assaults hadn't all also been nerfed it'd be fine, but they were, so now you need arty to do it inside time.

File: Soviet AA.jpg (339KB, 1247x818px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1247x818px

>>54194207
>>54189592
Oh, and here's my flak battery, since you mentioned that.

File: rtac.png (407KB, 436x480px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 436x480px

Latest in Soviet arsenal, fellow travelers!

So I want to get into flames of war. Probably early german, I want S-35s and Char B1s and Pz-38(t)s backing up Pz IIIs and IVs. Sdkfz 251 mechanized infantry as well. Any advice? I'm trying to find out what the local community plays.

>>54195963
> S-35s and Char B1s and Pz-38(t)s backing up Pz IIIs and IVs
Uhhhh, those are French Tanks. You're shit out of luck. Considering that they were on different sides. Unless you want to do Late War, because then you can field a Looted Tank company.

You'll want Blitzkrieg or Barbarossa, you're not likely to fit both Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs into the same list, they're quite expensive in Early War.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wUhv3Ecvs8

>Phil is playing East Germans

He's cheers'd himself.

I wonder if he's just spamming t-55s

>>54196067
No shit they're French tanks. Germany deployed S-35s to the Eastern Front in 1941-1942, they captured several hundred and they were better than German light tanks. I think they deployed some Chars as well but those may have been just in France as a garrison.

So is fielding looted french tanks not possible other than the normandy invasion? Because that's annoying.

>>54195963
>>54196067
>>54196135

Mid and late war Romanians can field french light tanks, 38(t)s, and panzer IIIs/IVs though their effectiveness will be questionable.

File: IMG_2894.jpg (104KB, 630x630px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 630x630px

>>54194207
You're putting words in my mouth.

I said it required a different play style and that some people would have to adjust their tactics.

Nothing about cheese. Those are your words.

And I did say I wasn't entirely certain about 7s and 8s. It helps, but I wasn't sure, and still am not sure, if it fully makes up for it.

Although I do fully agree with Lord Viruscide's criticisms of how Eyes and Ears used to work.

As for the poor community interaction from BF, we call Phill on his nonsense all the time.

Now, if you don't mind, I'll be over here enjoying my BADWRONGFUN.

Cheers

>>54196260
Too bad early war doesn't have them.

Looks like the medium tank company can take a czech platoon as a weapon platoon option. So Medium company HQ, medium company platoon, czech platoon, and a panzerschutzen platoon would be a good start.

So, looking through the barbarossa rules.

Medium tank HQ
Pz IV F: 245 pts
Sdkfz 9 recovery vehicle: 5pts

Medium tank platoon
3 Pz IVD: 450

Czech platoon
4 Pz-38(t)E/F: 450

Panzerschutzen platoon
3 squads 275
AT rifle team 10

Light AA gun platoon
3 Sdkfz 10/5: 70

Light armored car platoon
3 Panhards 145

Comes out to 1650, which I read is a popular point level? I have no idea if that's actually a viable list but it's the kind of thing I'd like to build. I'm mainly wanting to get into it for the hobby aspect, the game gives me a better excuse to build them.

File: sononglam.jpg (92KB, 610x340px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 610x340px

That cover of thundstruck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reN9KbB1Cd4

File: 1416613178126.jpg (122KB, 600x873px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 600x873px

>>54197061

I still feel secure in my decision to eagerly await Battlegroup: NORTHAG instead of Red Thunder.

>>54197939
I haven't figured out if I prefer Battlegroup yet. I like the mechanics but it feels like it will bog down in bigger games and is meant for "platoon+" as opposed to company engagements. This might just be because the local group is still learning the rules and things haven't smoothed out yet.

>>54198060

What turns me off Battlegroup is also one of the core problems in Flames of War, it's a tank game in an infantryman's war.

In almost all the North West Europe batreps I've read the two sides tanks knock each other out, and the attacking infantry company stops two bounds from the objective and withdraws.

Perhaps realistic in result, but there's not really enough detail there in the infantry fight to make the game feel alive.

>>54198414
How do you mean? Would you prefer the game had more complexity/depth to the infantry rules?

>>54196260
>Mid war Rumanian
?

>>54196298
>I said it required a different play style and that some people would have to adjust their tactics

Pretty sure Virus was talking about how people were upset that their cheese got removed. Naturally the meta should be expected to shift, but the main casualty of V4 is diversity of play and if you want to be more cynical... logic.

One of the complaints going into V3 presumably was how huge blobs of dug in infantry perhaps accompanied by arty parks were too hard to shift. Battlefield reduced the AT for the artillery, which was a good start. However they also made several other changes including making gun teams more surviveable, nerfing breakthrough guns and bunker busters to the point of uselessness, modifying flamethrowers so that they hit like a normal gun, and in the simplifying of assaults, also making them more challenging to bring in. Light artillery gets a boost to FP and repeat barrages cause rerolls of infantry saves. Artillery in general is the only way to soften up infantry positions. it behooves both sides to invest more in artillery or maybe even some nearly unkillable planes to harass artillery and/or slap tanks with their cannons.

When we factor in morale into these changes infantry combat basically comes down to an artillery duel and then one side rolls in to clean up the other (maybe... who knows how long that is going to take). So far in V4 I believe infantry play best as 1 or 2 platoons supporting some tanks.

Eyes and Ears is whatever, but Battlefront nerfed so many other ways of dealing with infantry I have still been left scratching my head. If I run my EW strelkovy and dedicate some points for cheapo mortars to counter battery enemy artillery, what's going to counter it besides tons of artillery? It's fine that you are enjoying V4, no one is saying you can't have fun. I think a lot of people wish we could keep the simplified rules and still have a diverse way to play the game.

>>54196298
>"I think a lot of the complaints, and I know I'm going to get flak for this, are people who have a certain style of play, and they figured out how to play with the rules as they existed in version 3, and now that things are different in version 4, they're not- They're trying to play things the same way they did, and not trying to adjust to the new rules. They're just complaining they can't keep playing the way they were."
>>~2:41:30

>"a lot of these complaints, like I said, seem to be from people upset that their little tricks from version three don't work any more"
>>~2:46:00

I don't know about your area, but around here "little tricks" is used as a euphemism for powergaming/cheese tactics. The whole thing came off to me as "the majority of people complaining are mad that they can't powegame like they used to or just won't adapt." Might not be what you intended to say, but that's what I got from it. Not that the whole thing isn't a WAG, but that's gonna be true of everything since we don't actually have any surveys of players to draw conclusions from.

>>54200303
If something is cheese I'll call it cheese.

American artillery parks in V3, pre-nerf Patton, pre-nerf Naval Bombardments, pre-nerf US Tank Destroyer companies. Those were all pure cheese.

As for "little tricks", I perhaps chose the wrong phrase.

What I was trying to get at was that things people used as their go-to method for dealing with certain situations during their V3 games are not working the way they used to due to the changes in the 4th Ed rules.

And a lot of the complaints I've been seeing here, and in social media, about 4th Ed is that people don't like that their go-to tactics from V3 for dealing with certain situations are either gone from 4th Ed entirely (like Eyes and Ears), or don't work the same way that they used to.

>>54200303
I mean, even if he didn't mean powergaming, the "little tricks" that v4 ruined are things like "wanting to bring a balanced force," "having effective anti air," "recce being useful and appropriately costed," and "infantry being removed by anything other than massive amounts of artillery"

Now those quirks are gone just gotta man up, adapt, and bring an arty park son.

>>54200526
Maybe part of it is people aren't being told how to update their tactics, just that they need to.

So, a constructive question. What's a normal list look like for you in v4? What're your new go-to ways of dealing with different threats?

>>54200548
>"wanting to bring a balanced force,"

Still perfectly doable. I've been playing a very similar list to what I was using in V3 with a mix of infantry, AT guns, tanks, and artillery, and I've found them all to still be useful.

>"having effective anti air"

Not an issue I've come across yet mysel, but that could just be down to the dice.

I've seen planes get turned into Swiss Cheese from AA fire.

But again, that could just be the dice.

>"recce being useful and appropriately costed,"

I still think that expansion of deployment zones and light harassment work are good roles for recce units.

And in Mid-war at least their relatively low points cost makes perfect sense.

Although they probably are a bit overpriced in the other two eras.

>"infantry being removed by anything other than massive amounts of artillery"

Again, not something I've come across yet myself.

I'm not bringing more than a single unit of artillery, and it's proving sufficient to lighten up enemy infantry for a turn or two before they get assaulted.

>>54200610
That's a bit of an open ended question.

I'm honestly still trying to get a feel for that.

It's been a bit of trial and error using old V3 tactics and seeing what still works the same, what mostly still works but needs some tweaking, and what doesn't work at all anymore.

So far at least, I've found anti-tank tactics in 4th Ed are still pretty close to what they were in V3.

Artillery only getting one spotter requires even more careful placement of the observer so he can see a significant portion of the battlefield.

Anti-infantry tactics seem to be shifting towards repeat bombardments (I've found two turns on the same target to be about right) and weight of fire to pin them down before assault.

But again, I'm still slowly trying to figure out what still works and what need some tweaking.

>>54200526
>about 4th Ed is that people don't like that their go-to tactics from V3 for dealing with certain situations are either gone from 4th Ed entirely (like Eyes and Ears), or don't work the same way that they used to.

Fair enough, but when they nerf every anti-infantry tactic besides artillery and certain tanks what do you expect?

>>54200870
>shifting towards repeat bombardments

I think that's a big point of concern for a lot of us that have problems with v4

Not only is it unrealistic, but it also puts lists that lack heavy artillery in a bad spot.

I've played games against arty parks, it's just no fun. Games devolving into an arty duel just sounds awful to me.

>>54199049
>Eastern Front

>>54201297
I don't like arty parks either, but I haven't seen that developing in my local group. At least not yet.

As for the wider player-base, I can't speak for that.

If anything, I might try to add some mortars to my list. Possibly instead of the actual arty, but I'm not sure yet.

So I'm looking at the V4 rules, haven't started to play FoW yet.

There's literally 3 tanks available for the british in north africa. Stuarts, Grants, and Crusaders. There should at least be Valentines, and Matildas were still around in 1942 even if they were becoming less relevant. What's up with the super limited selection? I like the V3 rules I'm seeing where you have options for a bunch of different cruiser types and stuff even if they're obsoleted, as cheap filler tanks.

>>54204085
V4 is in the process of killing FoW.

>>54204085
V4 has restarted MW, and has had exactly one release so far. Presumably, more is coming (such as, as you said, Matildas and Valentines, and British Rifle Companies)

>>54204085
>What's up with the super limited selection?

People forget that this is only the first release. There will be more.

>>54204085
Battlefront only wanted to include what THEY currently made in plastic, in order to sell new models

Battlefront just released multiplayer Total War rules for Team Yankee.

What do you guys think?

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/TeamYankee/Team-Yankee-Total-War.pdf

>>54205472
Seems fun. I like they table layout suggestions.
>I wish my friends weren't shit and played TY with me more than twice a year

>>54204085
Play a better game, like Battlegroup

>>54205967
>Battlegroup
>Company+ level
I'd like to have at least some of my weekend for other things
that being said, Battlegroup is top for smaller stuff

>>54196260
So I checked Eastern Front and Romanians can't field any French tanks.

Yeah I'm looking around and all I can see is the normandy Beutepanzerkompanie.

Using that list, I can field a whole lot of tanks that are totally useless but might be fun to swarm with. And they'll maul light armor and half tracks and stuff still.

HQ: 2 S35s
1st platoon: S35, 4 R35s
2nd platoon: S35, 4 R35s
3rd platoon: Pz IIIJ, 4 H38s
4th platoon: PzIIIJ, 4 H38s

5 Char B1s, 2 with flamethrowers

4 Marder Is

3 Pak 40s with trucks

A grenadier platoon with 3 squads

4 88 artillery pieces with trucks

2 ZIS-3s with trucks

3 Flak38s with trucks

File: Grey Wolf - GER Beuterpanzerkompanie.pdf (3MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1x1px

>>54207266
There's also the lapland war beutepanzerkompanie, from Grey Wolf Digital.

>>54206527

That's bizarre as fuck. They get R-35s in Barbarossa Digital and Red Bear. I guess they just 'misplaced' them for the years of 1942 and 1943.

Any suggestions for 6mm Team Yankee infantry? I'm wanting to build an East German T-72 battallion with a supporting company of BMP-1s. So I need 10 assault rifle + RPG 18 teams, 9 RPG-7 teams, 2 PKM teams, an AGS-17, and an SA-14.

>>54204168
>>54204386
Since when has making a tiny half assed effort that is very narrow and limiting ever been a good thing?

>>54204873
This, desu.

>>54205472
It seems like it could be fun.

I'd certainly like to try it out.

>>54210068
Everyone does release waves, even the mighty Games Workshop.

And Battlefront is nowhere near as large of a company as GW.

So they put out what they could reasonably accomplish as their first wave of the new edition, and will be following it up in the future with more releases.

Even the X-wing miniatures game which is on Wave 15 or so with about 3 Dozen different ships started out with only the X-Wing, Y-Wing, TIE Fighter, and TIE Advanced when the game first shipped.

>>54210222
>le 3 plastic kits
>this is Afrika, suck BF's dick
>forget all the other content that could easily be modified to flesh out Africa
>people defend this

>>54210273
>this first release for V4 is the totality of V4
>we'll never get anything more
>this is it
>just this and nothing else

>people are this dense
>people are this determined to shit on Battlefront no matter what

Oh look, I can green text a straw man argument as well...

>>54210356
>we're not going to release rules for all the old models everyone has because our competitors make those too but we want people to buy the new plastic kits but also we're gonna churn out those kits slow as molasses

>>54210394
>Publishing and updating two games and model ranges simultaneously isn't enough
>I demand they do all the work now!
>all at once!
>how dare they pace themselves!
>I don't care if they have limited manpower!

>>54210356
This strawmanning

>>54210469
>Updating previously established unit stats is hard
>literally an unpaid intern could put out more written content
Keep conflating this with model production, I dare you.

>>54210598
You seriously want an unpaid intern to write rules?

The stuff we get from the office game designers is questionable enough on it's own, and you want some random schmuck who probably wouldn't even know the first thing about the game to write rules.

That's a whole new level of stupid I didn't even think was possible.

>>54210469
Look, it's fine if they just want to do Afrika first, but at least do Afrika fully. One british tank, 2 lend lease tanks, and 1 armored car is ridiculous.

The entire unit roster in Desert Rats, a $20 army list, is those 3 tanks, a bren carrier, motorized infantry platoon, two anti-tank guns, an armored car, one field artillery piece, an AA gun, and a hurricane.

Team Yankee's core rulebook came with 2 army lists, and each of those has about as much as desert rats does. Less tanks because team yankee uses MBTs instead of the lend lease stuff, but they make up for it in IFVs and multiple different air assets and different types of AA and ATGM and artillery platforms.

>>54210683
For $20 I'm perfectly happy with 4 different core formations plus support options.

3 different kinds of tanks, all in plastic? Yes please.

AT guns, artillery, and infantry in plastic? Again, yes please.

A recce unit in plastic with 9 of them included in the box? Fuck yeah!

Desert Rats and the various models that go with it have given me plenty to be excited about.

>>54208057
I would look at GHQ's modern stuff, they're the gold standard for 6mm miniatures. I do Flames in 6mm GHQ but haven't tried Team Yankee yet.

Just the same, their "Modern Russian Individual Infantrymen" and "Soviet Cold War Era Heavy Weapons" is probably what you want.

>>54211039
Yeah probably works. I don't think i see any AGS-17s in there though.

>>54210771
The new plastic is really nice. I just wish list design and game balance weren't directly tied to selling new plastic... but o guess that's how the game is played.

Who else is shelving their T-72s for T-64s?

>>54211258
Use them as T-72Ms

>>54211258
I play East Germany, I don't give a shit

Why is the Chieftain the british MBT instead of the Challenger?

It's really cheap for its gun, but it's a slow piece of shit that is bad at firing on the move and has kinda bad armor. It's 20 years old.

>>54212149
The challenger would btfo any tank currently in the game, is why. The chieftain in game has stats halfway between what a challenger and a real chieftain should have

TY got fucky

>>54212149
>>54212295

The Chieftain is frankly overrated. All that thick steel armor was rapidly out classed by newer AT weapons using HEAT charges, and an engine that at one point had a 90% failure rate.

Then we have the actual combat record. During the Iran/Iraq War they got the pissed slapped out of them by Iraqi conscripts in T-62s. Fast forward a few years and they get BTFO again during the invasion of Kuwait, this time by Iraqi conscripts in monkey model T-72s.

Real winner this one.

>>54211183
Heroics and Ros do them

http://www.heroicsandros.co.uk/index.php?app=gbu0&ns=prodshow&ref=SM324

Heroics and Ros are great if you want a shit ton of cheap 6mm figures. The quality is average, but at that scale as long as you paint them ok no-one is going to notice the detail without a very close look in good light, or a magnifying glass.

File: vickers1.jpg (57KB, 601x390px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 601x390px

>>54204085
Try Ostfront instead? it's well balanced, having been playtested over 5 years before release and has pretty much every vehicle available. It also doesn't release new versions of lists or rules so all the army lists are balanced against each other and made for the rules.

It splits the war into three periods - early mid and late. There is also "Fall Weiss" which covers the invasion of Poland and battle of France.

The British army list has 11 different vehicles for early war, while the Fall Weiss list has 17 vehicles for the 1939 - 1940 period. All the cruiser types from Mk I to Mk V (including the Cruiser Mk. IIA CS), Carden-Loyd tankette, Daimler Dingo, Vickers Mk. IV light tank, Mk. VIC Vickers, Vickers 6-ton, both A and B version, Matilda and Matilda II as well as the bren carrier and Guy Armored car.

The quick fire ostfront rules are free to download and have 4 short army lists included:
http://www.wargamevault.com/product/193463/Ostfront-QuickFire-Rules

>>54205472
The recommended points already takes too long with a too-crowded table. Not keen to play a scenario where it's even worse.

File: 1328375358885.jpg (125KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1024x683px

Do any of you gents know of a manufacturer that makes T-72 Urals or any model of T-80 in 15mm?

>>54213972
Well the Battlefront T-72 is some bastardized hybrid between a T-72 Ural, T-72A, and T-72M. Close enough?

File: T-72A_with_Comp.jpg (95KB, 800x874px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x874px

>>54214346

Not quite what I'm looking for, looking or a T-72 without the extra composite turret armor and unfortunately the BF one does have that. A straight T-72M would fit my needs though.

File: IMG_0677.jpg (45KB, 640x408px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x408px

>>54214481
I'm not good at this, but does this look better? Not the best quality, but fine for the table. The old glory stuff paints up so well if you are drybrushing.

http://www.oldgloryminiatures.com/proddetail.asp?prod=PW-706

>>54212969
Do you know anywhere with pictures? None of this infantry has pictures. What is "East German Support"?

>>54197061
>the vid

don't tell me they sung that themselves....

File: brave motherfucker.jpg (70KB, 650x435px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 650x435px

>>54200548

>just gotta man up, adapt, and bring an arty park son.

....aww shit nigger, he said it.

i just re-reviewed arty rules.

he's right. arty park is back, and there is no stopping it. i am gonna guess a lighter tank swarm will do the trick, but then, it's not trick to add 2x AT gun teams to your arty park force.....

...shit.

just...

(goes and get's the V2 box of tricks)

>>54215807
Well, didn't Phil say that they were going back to the start with V4?

Cheers

>>54211258
i have no T-72's to shelve, but, yeah, i'm spreading the buttcheeks.
i enjoy a healthy dose of T-64 up the ass.

>>54215869
Cheers.

looks like i am going to keep airpower and fast light tanks around should i ever need to reach out and fuck up some arty.

My FLGS is starting a Team Yankee campaign sounds fun

>>54215110
try google image searching the product name and "heroics and ros" - there should be pictures of minis people have bought or painted.

That is the worst thing about H&R, you often have no idea what you're getting. Shit cheap as chips though so just grab a bunch. You can always email them too if you have questions or are looking for a specific weapon or unit. They do take suggestions about what to model and cast next.

Choo Choo Motherfuckers

File: 20170708_155632.jpg (6MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 4032x3024px

>>54216351
Aw fuck it didn't combat attach.

>>54216373
How well did that go for the train

>>54212295
Would it really be that much better than the leo 2

>>54216972
Minimally, it got swarmed by t34s.

>>54217010
should be slower than the leo 2

>>54217010
It might be slower but the armor would definitely be better.

>>54217447
Should an Abrams be slower than a Leo 2?

Chieftains are in such a weird place.

6 points per model with an amazing gun, but man with armor 10 on the sides vs heat even rpg 18s are lighting them up on practically every hit. And they're so damn slow.

>>54213052
Thanks for the recommendation, looks pretty good. Will try.

File: IMG_8236.jpg (1MB, 2448x3231px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3231px

Sweden has a tank museum with stuff from ww1 to cw. Guess who went there today?

File: IMG_8239.jpg (1MB, 2448x3195px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3195px

>>54220652
Imma spam pics, tell me if it gets annoying.

File: IMG_8246.jpg (1MB, 3264x2405px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2405px

Open for requests, they had loads of different tanks.

Nice, do they have any of the rare stuff from WWI? Bovington has nearly every WWI tank except this exceedingly rare one which was a MKV converted into a gun carrier, I think only 6 were ever made.

Also when does Red Thunder come out? My original scepticism has turned into excitement for T-64's.

>>54220775
I think the official release day for Red Thunder is this weekend.

>>54220721
Post Universal Carriers.

File: IMG_8238.jpg (1MB, 2448x3178px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3178px

>>54220775
Not much ww1 stuff, this tankette is the closest one. The rest was swedish armoured tractors.

Red tsundere released today right? At least in my flgs.

File: IMG_8316.jpg (1MB, 2448x3195px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3195px

>>54220812
Righto

File: IMG_8317.jpg (894KB, 3040x2281px) Image search: [Google]

894KB, 3040x2281px

>>54220812
Amazingly low profile on the uc. I'm not sure I'd be man enough to ride one into war.

File: IMG_8318.jpg (1MB, 2448x3186px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3186px

>>54220812
Just look at how the driver is seated.

File: IMG_8345.jpg (1MB, 2444x3215px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2444x3215px

Even best germany is represented

>>54220879
>>54220904
>>54220920
Greatest vehicle ever made. They're pretty cheap too. Museum local to me was selling one for 10K.

File: IMG_8346.jpg (1013KB, 3264x2366px) Image search: [Google]

1013KB, 3264x2366px

>>54220953
Crazy car. Everything seemed to be made out of plastic (bakelite?). It is apparently really hard to recycle because of it.

File: IMG_8249.jpg (1MB, 2926x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2926x2448px

Some amphibious BT scout tank.
Looted by the finns at the winter war. Gifted or sold to us some time after the war.

File: IMG_8294.jpg (754KB, 2237x2896px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 2237x2896px

One of the top objects at the site.

>>54221008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-38_tank

>>54221108
The Hetzer seldom breed in captivity yet sometimes, a wonder occurs. Or if you will, ein Wünder.

File: IMG_8295.jpg (2MB, 2448x3211px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3211px

>>54221210

File: IMG_8291.jpg (1MB, 2360x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2360x3264px

This beast. Jesus christ is it tall. A very imposing tank irl I'll say.
Also interesting to see the gunbarrel portruding in an angle from the turret.

File: 0905.jpg (91KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 960x960px

/NVA/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mG3BvkT6YQ

File: IMG_8307.jpg (1MB, 2448x3207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3207px

Probably my favourite tank on display. Easily the crudest and most unpolished object.

File: IMG_8304.jpg (2MB, 2448x3191px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3191px

>>54221495
I mean look at it

File: IMG_8435.jpg (1MB, 3264x2284px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2284px

The pride of my nation: the swedish pancake

File: Right.jpg (61KB, 1000x409px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1000x409px

>>54220808
>>54220842

Thanks I thought it was soon.

I was thinking of the MK1 gun carrier 1917, such a rare tank, I'm starting to think none have survived.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww1/gb/Gun_Carrier_Mk-I.php

File: IMG_8388.jpg (1MB, 2448x3158px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3158px

Armoured tractor from the twenties. Almost 100 years old!

>>54221610

Ah yes, the 70's shoot and scoot.

File: IMG_8266.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>54221675
That looks pretty boss.

File: IMG_8490.jpg (1MB, 2448x3219px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3219px

Eh some rare unknown tank.

>>54221750

Yes I think many people forget there were more tanks in the Great War than the MKIV and the Renault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF4oEpv9JgM

>>54221813

Kek.

>>54220842

Crazy times back then with tank unit barracks inside the capital city. But then again these early tanks were meant to quell civil unrest rather than facing enemy armies.

Any slavaboo know what vehicle this is? I couldn't hear the speaker over the loud motor rumblings.

File: IMG_8403.jpg (1MB, 2439x3175px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2439x3175px

>>54221944
Damnit, captcha is ejecting me from the thread and deleting my pics.

File: IMG_8252.jpg (1MB, 2442x2199px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2442x2199px

>>54221109
>>54221008
It was a T-37 apparently.

>>54221977

Some variant of MT-LB methinks.

>>54219064
Well Phil, since you are making the M1A1 have more armor than the Leo 2, you can make the Chally front armor 30.

Cheers

>>54220652
Any neat WWII brit vehicles besides the carrier?

>>54221495
>>54221544
Thin your paints

>>54221813
What is that? its looks like an upgraded T-34 with a T-54 turret.

Cheers.

>>54222071
Sweden (and Finland) bought a bunch of East German stock, I have no idea what all that shit they've welded to it though.

File: IMG_8406.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

>>54222130
Sorry, only the previously posted firefly, uc and a loyd carrier (that I for some reason missed to snap).
Have a cool cw brit tank (modernized).

File: IMG_8444.jpg (1MB, 3264x2345px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2345px

M8 Greyhound
One, another and then two more were captured in -61 by swedish UN forces fighting rebels in Congo. They were fixed and used in subsequent fighting. The 37mm ammo was rusting so only the fiddycals were used.

File: IMG_8446.jpg (1MB, 2448x3224px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3224px

>>54222312

File: IMG_8460.jpg (1011KB, 2248x3080px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 2248x3080px

>>54222338
The M8 is such a cool vehicle. Makes me want to start LW murricans.

File: IMG_8243.jpg (1MB, 2448x3202px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3202px

Tank with training wheels

File: IMG_8242.jpg (1MB, 3264x2393px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2393px

>>54222446

File: IMG_8296.jpg (1MB, 2448x3129px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3129px

>buy tanks from chekz
>soon ready my friend
>suddenly chekz annexed by hitlerland
>hitler repaints tanks
>call them pz38
>invades slavia with them
Wheres our tank moneys, soviet?

>>54222446
>>54222468
That has to be one of the oddest things I've ever seen.

File: IMG_8566.jpg (128KB, 850x596px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 850x596px

>>54224940
Strv fm/31
Wheels are for marching since the tracks were unreliable and slow. 75km/h on wheels and transformation is within 30 secs. The construction was made obsolete by better and more reliable track and suspension design.

>>54216373
>bartosz
>german train
>unpainted train

....bitch

File: Schofield_1.jpg (46KB, 550x285px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 550x285px

>>54225130
>Strv fm/31
Did the fuckin' Swedes steal our design.

>>54225208
you are kidding!!!
so the Semple Cart had a younger brother in the Armored car department? that 2pdr has got to be cramped as all fuck in that turret

the more you know.

File: IMG_8324.jpg (837KB, 2287x2649px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 2287x2649px

>>54225208 #
The lolfield came 9 years later though.
>thieving kiwi

File: IMG_8323.jpg (1MB, 2444x3036px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2444x3036px

>>54225395
Kübelwagen
Better or worse than the Willy?

File: AB_Trailer_Mortar_Jeep1.jpg (469KB, 1200x319px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1200x319px

>>54225486
Worse, since it wasn't FREEDOM made and didn't have a glider-ready version. Mainly because the germans had tiny gliders.

Just picked up the V4 starter. A friend is going to get one too, we're going to trade so I get the 2 german halves and he gets the british halves.

I'm going to pick up the rommel box as well, that'll let me field a 100 point list right away.

HQ:
2 up-armored Pz IIIs

Pz III platoon:
2 short 5cm, 2 long 5cm, 1 7.5 cm

Pz IV platoon:
4 long 7.5cm

Heavy AA platoon
2 88s


Going to expand on it to 125 by getting a rifle platoon with mortar and mmg, a platoon of 3 panzer IIs, a panzer II OP, and a pair of 10.5cm artillery.

>>54225806
Generally most people see 100 points as an upper limit on what can be achieved in a reasonable space of time. Good foundation choices for building an army, most of the cost is because of the Long 7.5s.

>>54225911
Fair enough.

And yeah I decided to go with long 75s rather than dedicating actual AT guns. I could make two of them short 75s to fit in the rifle platoon.

>>54225961
Actual AT guns other than the 88s I mean. I guess since they're ROF2 they can actually put out quite a bit of hurt. Having the short 75s gives me more bombardment opportunity too if I'm not using dedicated arty.

I could also drop one of the long barreled Panzer IIIs to fit in 3 Panzer IIs to give me a spearhead section, and Panzer IIs can potentially take out crusaders especially from the side.

So it'd look something like this:

HQ:
2 uparmored Pz IIIs (16)

Pz III platoon:
2 short 5cm, 1 long 5cm, 1 7.5cm (25)

Pz IV platoon:
2 short 7.5cm, 2 long 7.5cm (32)

Pz II platoon:
3 Pz IIs (6)

Rifle platoon:
3x mg34, 1x mg34 HMG, 1x ATR, 1x 80mm mortar (9)

Heavy AA:
2 88s (12)

File: DSCN7156.jpg (1MB, 1250x1229px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1250x1229px

so, i have this sick longing. so, i bought the last copy of this book in my region...

yup.

also, Thailand is now making meme pocky....

sleep well, /fowtg/

>>54225182
Shit I've been found out

>>54227361
That was the first book I ever bought for Flames. It's pretty general, but has a ton of lists, photos, and other material. I much prefer a book like that to the newer releases. I'll probably still use Eastern Front depending on how slow Ostfront starts off for the new MW.

Which army are you looking to bring?

Who runs the scans database? Is it someone in these threads or is it from another source?

File: oca2.jpg (112KB, 800x524px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 800x524px

phil

File: 2000004607.jpg (267KB, 1400x917px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1400x917px

pls

>>54231034
i still have Ostfront. my first book was fresh-release Fortress Europe, but i went back and bought old stuff.

i have a lot of standing material, but new and unique is always exciting.
if they only made plastic Pz35t's ....i'd then use the plastics we have at our command to whip up a Romanian Tancuri for MW:

HQ is mighty T-4

Squads:
T-3
T-4
one squad of either / or, but likely more T-3's
2 R-2's w a Zvezda T-26 thrown in
2 R-2's w a Zvezda T-26 thrown in again

likley Zvezda for Armored Cars
anyone can get me some 1:144 Stukas....


>>54230149
it's hard to balance my level of culture and vulgarity
but my models are never vulgar....

>>54231034
>babies who started with Eastern Front
>babies who started with OstFront
I started with Stalingrad, BF was never good.

File: 20170709_131645.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

So I made a death camp...

>>54234150
>Who runs the scans database?

Technically all of the Panzerfunk crew can access it and manage it, but I tend to be the one most directly involved in organizing it and adding files to it.

Although most of the scans themselves come from various different Anons that post here in the threads.

Why, what's up?

>>54235617
>almost 75 years later
>still too soon

>>54221398
Brit fireflies were an interesting bunch. There is a reason we stopped with the 76 for long barrel shermans, and its the fact that the turret space is very small. Brits decided 17pdr was the way to go, and i guess it paid off for them. Good on em. unfortunate that they also led the war in tanker crew wounded/killed in sherman variants, but thats because they didnt wear helmets. Berets look better i guess, but so does a bigass bruise from slamming your forhead into the turret ring.

>>54236679
Wait, why? It's not like depicting one is necessarily glorifying it. Allied soldiers fighting to liberate such a camp seems like a decent scenario.

...although I kind of see your point in and of that I, as a German player, wouldn't really want to be the one commanding the defense of the place.

>>54237704
For what it's worth, it was being defended by Brits while a joint task force of Finns and Japanese tried to attack it.

>>54237593
Admittedly, they also didn't get the Sherman models with crew survival improvements (wet stowage, improved armor, etc). Those went to US troops.

>>54235617
>>54236679
>>54237704
Permanent issue with it right there: Either the german player really doesn't want to play the scenario and/or wants to lose, or the german player looks like a sociopath/nazi. Either way, it's awkward all around, and oddly serious for your average tabletop gaming group.

>>54237704
>...although I kind of see your point in and of that I, as a German player, wouldn't really want to be the one commanding the defense of the place.
Yeah, quite.

File: DSCN5940.jpg (970KB, 1600x926px) Image search: [Google]

970KB, 1600x926px

>>54235617

*facepalm*

>>54236658

Oh nothing just thanks for making them available. I run one of the Warhammer Fantasy ones. We had a problem with one going dead a while ago so I just like to remind people to have a backup.

File: 1481998499297.jpg (223KB, 1134x761px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1134x761px

loving the summer weather

File: Washi Washi Neko Desu Kwaii.pdf (78KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1x1px

One more game to go, can I take the club's championship with this final game, or will Soviets stomp me down. Fuck I am tense.

>>54243968
That's a lot of Type 89's.

Any of you anons got the screencap with Bayankhan's comment in it? I think its from a cheers meme. He's a friend and doesn't believe he made it into a screencap.

>>54189522
Played my first game of V4 today. My US assault group against Soviet Strelkovy.

My god. My bunker busters/breakthrough guns/flamethrowers now do near nothing to those bastards when dug in.

Is masses of dug in fearless infantry the new meta? Because at least in V3 I could deal with that using arty/breakthrough guns/flamethrowers. Now I feel like the only way is to assault (something I will either lose or take a lot of losses doing)

>>54245098

No, repeat bombardments with heavy artillery is the way to go

>>54245098
>>54245130
81mm Mortar. Best bunker Buster in the game.

>>54245098
Spam medium mortar bombardments, and use an AOP spotter for the absurd durability. Then just shell them for forever.

Is it interesting? No. Is it what V4 wants you to do? Yes.

>>54245098

Phil wants you to sit around and shell them like it's WW1.

File: DSCN2485.jpg (1MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1944px

Painted my first panzer today. Rate it FoWg

>>54247760
Thin your paints. Thin the hell outta them.

>>54247760
It's.. a bit rough, but better than bare plastic. What method and paints did you use?

File: 2009_01_10_Fyrbrand.jpg (17KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x300px

>>54247760
thin your paints

History question for all. Churchill MkIII had the 6-pounder. However the history for the 6th Guards Tank Brigade says they went into Normandy with mostly IIIs, and I'm reading a memoir of a troop leader in the 6th Guards that describes his tank as having a 75...

Did they upgrade the MkIIIs with 75s?

File: Guards_1.jpg (56KB, 800x512px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x512px

>>54248098
What I've seen from pics is almost entirely IVs and VIs. Not sure why they're saying IIIs, and to my knowledge no III was ever converted to carry a 75mm.

File: Guards_Troop_1_Gren.jpg (124KB, 760x800px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 760x800px

>>54248324

File: 10.jpg (83KB, 634x461px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 634x461px

>>54235617

Kek

>>54248324
Figuring out correct equipment has been a struggle for me with my limited resources. Although the presence of IVs would make this troop leader's memoir make a lot more sense. 6th Guards in general is confusing as now I'm coming across photos of the 2nd Bat./Welsh Guards in Cromwells. If the 6th Guards Brigade was subordinate to 15 SCOTS for most of the campaign, the 15th's divisional recce would have that job - not Cromwells.

>>54248545
>2nd Bat./Welsh Guards in Cromwells
That might be because 2nd bat/Welsh were to armoured recce for the Guards Armored Division, and not part of the 6th Guards Tank Brigade.

>>54248640
....I give up.

File: Cuckoo.png (73KB, 600x327px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x327px

>>54248640
>>54248545
Yeah, there being the Guards Armored Division (Guards in Shermans/Cromwells) and the 6th Guards Tank Brigade (Churchills) can lead to a good bit of confusion. Easiest way to narrow down the search some is to pick one of the three parts of the tank brigade (3rd Battalion Scots Guards, 4th Battalion Coldstream Guards, and 4th Battalion Grenadier Guards) and research that one. I'm doing mine as the 4th Grenadiers since that's the unit that supported the 6th Airlanding Brigade from Varisty to the end of the war (when my Airlanding are themed for), but the 4th Coldstream are cool and even had a captured Panther they called Cuckoo.

File: minefields.png (1KB, 180x40px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 180x40px

>>54247760
I assume it came like that or something?

>>54248932
The differences there aren't confusing, my issue is I'm just looking in the wrong places. Last site I tried to use for research clearly stated the 2nd Bat./Welsh were part of 6th Guards for NW Europe campaign and that 4th Coldstream were a Motor Battalion.

File: IMG_8275.jpg (897KB, 2258x3005px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 2258x3005px

>>54241504
>T-80
>Running free in Boden
I have complicated feelings about this

>>54247760

This looks like a very old model painted using the old oil based paints.

It also looks like shit.

File: 12650f31187453fbbd068b6506d33213.jpg (160KB, 1308x831px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1308x831px

Any ETA on a Red Thunder PDF?

File: IMG_8574.jpg (213KB, 1579x1473px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1579x1473px

So I bought this.
Now what?

>>54252933
>people believe that bullshit meme
just

File: IMG_5131.jpg (65KB, 600x803px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x803px

>>54252967
https://youtu.be/xzpndHtdl9A

>>54252967
How bullshit is the meme of Wojack the Bear?

>>54254658
>trusting slavs
>ever
You'll learn one day.

File: IMG_8576.png (427KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 600x401px

Wojtek was a hero

>>54254658
Well, he existed and was a polish mascot. It's possible he did also learn to carry ammunition, but unlikely this was a significant factor in artillery battles.

>>54254658

They did have a bear because he lived in London zoo after the war but I think it's safe to say he didn't carry munitions during combat.

>>54255564

Sorry Edinburgh zoo.

>>54255564
If nothing else the cannon blast would've scared him shitless. Bears don't like loud noises.

Ran into an old acquaintance of mine and he told me just finished a Kampfgruppe Bäke force. I haven't had a chance to play Flames of War V4 since other games have been taking up my interest BUT NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME. I have an ISU-122 army that hasn't seen the table in years, how should I build a 1500 points force with it?

Appreciate the help.

>>54256833
ISU-152s got their effectiveness ruined by V4, but the 122 might still be slightly useable. You could consider running them as Hero SP Guns from Berlin.

>>54256980

ISU-152 were shit before too so I've never used them. How do rocket armed Sturmoviks fare now a days? I was thinking of using the SP gun battalion from Red Bear, is the one from Berlin much better?

>>54257089
Well the rockets aren't great because of the Artillery Nerf, but IL-2Ms are now the God Kings of the Sky. Heroes count as veteran for receiving orders which means that smoking your big guns isn't so viable when you can just blitz move outta the smoke.

>>54257089
You basically only want to use rockets against infantry in the open. Use bombs against dug in infantry and cannons against armored vehicles.

>>54256980
The ISU-122 is an expenive RoF 1 gun with a now useless breakthrough gun (and subsequently volley fire) stat instead of a rule like cat killer that actually synergizes with the big gun. They are about the same price as SU-100's, but you are much better off with the SU-100s now, especially if we are talking heroes. I guess you could use the ISU-122 as an overpriced TA2 HMG Bulldozer that can try to kill a panther or tiger if you need to do that.

I picked up a tiger platoon and an afrika rifle platoon today.

Thinking this is what I'm going to go with for my 100 point V4 list.

Pz III company

HQ: Uparmored Pz III *16)

Pz III platoon:
1 up-armored Pz III, 3 short 5cm Pz III

Pz IV platoon:
1 short 75, 1 long 75

Pz II platoon:
3 Pz IIs

Afrika rifle platoon
Full platoon. 4 MG34s, 2.8cm ATR, mortar, HMG

Tiger platoon:
1 tiger I with an escorting up-armored Pz III

>>54260404
It seems a bit unfocused.

At the very least, decide on either long or short Panzer IVs. Putting one of each in the platoon is not a good move. They fill very different roles.

>>54261026
Oh? As far as I can tell, if doing a bombardment there's no difference between having 1 or 2 guns, you'll be rerolling hits either way. So I could have the one bombard and the other direct fire at something after a blitz move.

>>54261026
Anyway, what I could do is make the pz III platoon 4 standard short 5cm ones and drop one of my MG34 teams in the platoon, that'd give me 4 points to upgun the other Pz IV if it's really a problem.

>>54261099
Huh. I'll have to double check that. For some reason I thought that only applies to a single-gun bombardment,
But that could be from the old rules.

>>54262612
Yeah, the old rules were more granular. The new rule is if it's 1 or 2 guns you reroll hits, 5+ guns and you reroll misses.

File: 683215.jpg (368KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 2048x1365px

>>54212295
I've been reading a bit on the Challenger since I got back from Bovington, and I can tell you with certainty the Chally would do no BTFO'ing of the sort, at least as far as the early marques are concerned.

The Challenger was effectively a redesigned Chieftain built to incorporate Chobham armour and house an improved engine (which frankly could have been achieved by cutting holes in the floor of the driver's cabin and letting the crewman propel it with his legs). Among some of the things carried across from Chieftain was the old-fashioned turret layout, the fire control system, the central driver's position, and the main gun, as well as a few other knick-knacks.

The fire control system, crew ergonomics and relatively underpowered engine were major criticisms, and were notably inferior to its contemporaries like the M1 and Leo 2. The poor showing at the Canadian Army Trophy competition of 1987 is/was attributed, at least in part, to some of these problems.

Gave a good account of itself in the Gulf War, though, and it is a fucking sexy looking tank, innit?

>>54264023
>it is a fucking sexy looking tank, innit?
>Flat slab sides
>Shot trap driver's position

It ain't. Foit me.

>>54258157
>>54256980

I honestly think the ISU-122 is better now than before. While BTFO'ing infantry can't be done now, they can take up positions much faster. The problem of the ISU-122 used to be that the Germans could get usually 3 good round of shooting while ISU's moved into position. They could usually shoot off one platoon. Right now, the have maybe two turns before the ISU's are withing volley fire range and can bring some hurt back.

From what I can see, their hull mounted guns can shoot in defensive fire which makes assaulting them riskier of the the IS-2 command is near by.

Also the Katjushas in support have gone from "haha nice meme" to a respectable 3+ firepower now.

>>54264023

It carried over the Chieftain's gun because it was already a good gun, the Abrams only had a 105mm to the Chieftain's 120mm. It still has the longest confirmed tank on tank kill at 3.2 miles.

I know the Chieftain is way over rated in TY but it was a good tank, it's major issues were it's under powered engine and how damn uncomfortable the driving compartment was. The Challenger fixing these things tackled some of the major issues of the last generation.

The Canadian Trophy competition is generally recognised as not really being a good representation of combat.

Overall the Challenger is comparable to the Abrams and the Leopard certainly. But yeah I wouldn't say it's going to be BTFO of them.

>>54212739

The Chieftain is overrated but it was a good tank, for a start the one in TY is the MKVII, which had fixed a lot of the engine problems.

Using export models to gauge their effectiveness is a bit silly, that would be like judging the T-72's effectiveness based on their performance in the Gulf War.

>>54212739
>>54265103

I'll just add also that they were in no way BTFO in the invasion of Kuwait. The Kuwaiti 35th Armoured Brigade had something like 40 of the tanks, took part in the battle of the bridges loosing none, they joined up with NATO during the invasion of Iraq, again loosing none and returned home in 1991 undefeated.

The other Kuwait Chieftains either ran out of ammunition and were abandoned or were lost because they were engaging the enemy much close than the Chieftain was designed for.

>>54264255
From the math that I have thrown together, the change in BtG means you will only have a 15% chance of killing a veteran infantry stand per shot as opposed to a 25% chance. I accounted volley fire into my calculations. For the price staying the same, it seems quite bad to me. Maybe it could see limited work against gun teams, but a PAK 40 can still pen it from the front.

As far as moving faster, that's not something that's exclusive to the ISU-122. The SU-100 and 85 can also dash and their bonus at range with cat killer means they can get into position to shoot even quicker than the ISU-122 against vehicles.

in defensive fire, I think I'd rather have 2 AT 12 shots as opposed to 1 AT 15 shot since you are hitting side armor.

So yeah, I can't really justify spending all the points on them when you can just buy any cheap artillery option which will do a better job of killing infantry and gun teams. RoF 1 and the nerfed Breakthrough are too severe to recover from.

>>54265091
Oh no, the gun was excellent, definitely. One of few things from Chieftain that I doubt many tankies would've complained about carrying over to Challenger.

File: IMG_8579.jpg (811KB, 2128x3132px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 2128x3132px

I need to spray my bong tanks (LW Canadian actually). Do you think tdeath guard green is a good shade for it?

How do tank MGs work converting v3 to v4? In v4 they're just all rolled into one while in v3 you had multiple MGs but if you fire more than 1 the others get ROF1. Does it still work that way?

>>54220652
>Sweden
Shermanon is that you?

>>54268183
It works the same way. The only difference is that you can no longer shoot MGs at the same time you shoot your main gun.

>>54268731
Nope.

>>54268811
Oh god the swedes are multiplaying. With stockholmers maybe even.

The terror. 08/08/08 worst day of my life

File: IMG_5972.jpg (65KB, 744x743px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 744x743px

>>54268856
I swear to god I see more swedish stockholm fow/ty players in these threads than I meet in real life. Like, that are willing to play with me.
Uh, I mean this applies to the rest of you too I guess but I'm also a swedish stockholm fow/ty player. So that's weird is what I'm saying.
...
Nevermind, disregard everything I wrote and enjoy this quality meme pic.

>>54269584
Oi! Carefly with who you're insinuating is a stockholmer.

(But yeah, they probably have the biggest fow group up there)

>>54265103
>Using export models to gauge their effectiveness is a bit silly
The fact the chieftain's turret was penetrated by the 115mm is why Chobham was invented, though, so clearly the brits thought that was representative.

Can't wait for the T-62 to come out with AT 17 and an inability to hurt the kettle-powered monster tank Battlefront jizzed into IM, though.

>>54270204
I wonder how they are going to handle the T-62s ROF, they've already mode the standard Russian tanks slow as fugg.

>>54270204

It wasn't penetrated, there was a design fault between the turret and the gun that meant a round could get jammed in. That's what it fixed as well as uparmouring the turret.

>>54270204

Also Chobham was in development before that.

>>54270696

Sorry this was a reference to Stillbrew.

>>54269584
Calm down Pucko, I am no stockholmer.

File: IMGxieH.jpg (47KB, 630x318px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 630x318px

>>54270696
>It wasn't penetrated, there was a design fault between the turret and the gun

>>54271446

Yes, look where that is, where the gun meets the turret exactly as I said.

This is what Stillbrew was designed for.

File: IMG_7055.jpg (99KB, 1440x1200px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1440x1200px

>>54271418
Who are you calling pucko you filthy bonde

>>54271520
How the fuck do you call that "not penetrated"?

File: things to consider.jpg (326KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1600x900px

>>54271581
Reminded me of this.

And I'm just trying to fit into your society. I'm a bonde from another landa.

This so doesn't work as a rhyme.

>>54271630

Penetrated means to go through, it didn't go through the armour but a gap in it.

If you mean did the round go in then yes, but you were originally saying that the turret armour was too thin and that was the reason Chobham was designed for, which is wrong.

Chobham had been in development long before this, this issue was down to how the gun was designed and not to do with the armour.

>>54271581
Swedish?

>>54271686
Swedish party, lets all have a big lesbian orgy!

So I've got a friend that works with third infantry, and he's wanting to do a 3ID list as his first FoW army. Here's what he's come up with so far for 1500, any advice?

Rifle company
HQ with 1 bazooka team

Rifle platoon with 3 squads, SMG command section
Rifle platoon with 3 squads
Weapons platoon with 4 M1919s

2 57mms with trucks

4 M10 TDs (Late)

3 Shermans (2 M4A1, 1 M4A3 76mm)

3 Calliopes

>>54271665
They made stillbrew as a direct response to the fact the armour of the turret was too thin to resist even 115mm guns, that's pretty well documented. Numerous chieftains were knocked out in the iran-iraq war, some of them even by T-55s; I imagine "it's a gap in the armour" is just a myth that's developed from that one picture. You don't lose 20% of your total armoured force in one battle from lucky shots.

File: Chieftain ultrasound.jpg (740KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 2048x1536px

>>54271950
It's probably also worth considering the ultrasound examination; the chieftain's armour was found to be thinner than previously quoted by a lot of books, which likely explains some of the discrepancy between it's apparently miraculous protective powers in a lot of books vs the slightly disappointing realities.

File: IMG_5940.jpg (55KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x335px

>>54271634
Oh that's ok then. Anyone with a morbid sense of humor is family to me.

File: upgrayds.jpg (141KB, 1100x550px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1100x550px

>>54272338
fun fact, someone added a new sign there as a sort of grafiti, and the city chose to keep it there.

File: IMG_7261.jpg (35KB, 419x537px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 419x537px

>>54272397
That's unusually cool of them

>>54264238
>Flat slab sides
Im sure the interior is very spare as it is, and as us brits are such magnificent specimens we just dont have a good enough supply of 4'6 crewmen to reduce it any further by sloping the sides.

>>54271950
>>54272010

> Export versions.

>>54274663
>Export
>Berlin Brigade
I mean you're technically not wrong but...

File: penetration-us-intel-1.png (336KB, 1433x608px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1433x608px

>>54274663
>Production Mk.5 Chieftain Turret Front is 390mm
>115mm U-5TS has 450mm of HEAT penetration

Who makes french tanks anyway? Battlefront wants $10 or more per tank for french lights. I want to make my defenders of cherbourg army. And does anyone make them with german cupolas?

Panzerabteilung 206

HQ: 2 S35s

S35 + 4 H38
S35 + 4 H38
S35 + 4 H38

5 Char B1

709 Infantriedivision

Grenadier HQ with 2 SMG/Panzerfaust teams and 8.8cm raketenwerfer

Grenadier platoon with 2 squads, command SMG panzerfaust team

Grenadier platoon with 2 squads, command SMG panzerfaust team

Stug platoon with 3 stug G

3 Pak 40s with trucks

3 Flak38s

4 French 105 howitzers with observer rifle team

>>54279630

Well... the price is good, the quality not so much.

http://www.gamodls.com/

>>54276703
Well most modern Heats could pen the Chieftan in the 60s

Me and my buddy wanna get started in FoW. Is there a starter that has Soviet and German tanks? Or is there a 3rd party that does a package? We know fuck all about miniature gaming.

>>54281775
Starter sets are kind of woeful at the moment. There's only really one for Mid War with Germans and Brits.

Check out the Plastic Soldier Company, Forged In Battle, or Zvezda for alternatives. I would suggest looking at the books in the Scan Database at the top of the thread, the rulebook, and then say Red Bear/Grey Wolf, for Late War or Barbarossa for Early War. A box of T-34s and Panzer IVs won't set you back much, but will get you a decent practice game.

>>54281820
Huh, one of the first results on Zvezda is a model package with german and soviet tanks. About how expensive does the game get for an army compared to maybe warhammer?

>>54281855
If you strain your ears, you may be able to hear me laughing from the underside of the world. Unless you're doing some kind of niche army or big fuck off horde costs generally will stay under the 200 dollar US mark, Maybe even less if you build something with a lot of plastic. The All Plastic Army boxes that BF puts out are considered "Okay" at best, but they'll build an entire army for 105 bucks. Maybe a little more if you want some recon and artillery.

>>54281866
Shit that is pretty fucking cheap, I'll check it out.

>>54281820
I really miss the not so old starters (open fire line?), i gifted a friend the 9 T-34 with SU box.

How they were called?

>>54281872
Not really that cheap. It's just, you're comparing them to gee-dubs who think they're selling pure gold minis.

>>54281889
They're pretty much the golden standard of miniatures, and if you look at the boxes for base units like tac marines, etc, they line up with other miniature costs. Even reaper, and FoW's cheap miniatures cost the same as a single space marine, you just need less of them to play a "standard" game.

>>54281872
For the German player get a SS Panzergrenadier Company box (if they still make them), 2 Panzer IV/Stugs boxes from battlefront or PSC, 1 Nebelwerfer box, maybe a Big Cat and you are done for a good time.

For the Soviet player idk 3-4 T-34 boxes, a SU platoon and maybe an Tank rider infantry Company?

>>54281936
Thanks m8, gonna read the rules later and maybe check out some videos with my buddy, then hop on a small set of models to play with.

Is there anything more boring that T-34 horde lists?

>>54283339
They just seem generic because of the way Battlefront decided to portray Soviets. Basically every T-34 list is the same 15-20 T-34s, some SU assault guns, mortars, and now likely IL-2s.

You can spice things up now by bringing 2 formations or a forward detachment.

>>54283339
Strelkovy spam
Any of the FV Para lists
King Tiger/Jagdtiger lists
Panther only lists
Arty Park lists
Every list in Banzai! and Gung Ho!

File: tmp_20587-IMG_20170625_2242051411013292866.jpg (3MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x2432px

>>54283339
>Is there anything more boring that T-34 horde lists?
Yetanotherarmoredriflecompany.pdf
That, or points/100 FV Panzer IVs. We have one local that did that for months.

>>54283556
>Any of the FV Para lists
Any? Even when half the force is barely armored vehicles?

>>54283556
>Any of the FV Para lists

Plenty of people enjoy playing paratroopers. I've had great fun playing US Paras. And lots of people enjoy American, British, and German paratroopers.

>King Tiger/Jagdtiger lists

The Large German Cats are what I'd call finesse lists. They require skill and precision to run well. Lord Viruscide certainly seems to enjoy playing King Tigers.

>>54286232
I think he means to fight, and heavy tanks are very boring to fight. Nothing dies on either side, especially in V4 where a direct hit from a 1,000lb bomb might bail the tank.

>>54286232
>They require skill and precision to run well.
Soviet tanks are an entirely different game from non-soviet lists, so it's not like they're not skill-based. It's not trivial to manuever 8 tanks so they all get shots and nobody needs to move and fuck up your shots for another turn.

>>54279630
Forged In Battle makes B1s and S35s. No Hotchkisses. Their vehicles have moulded-on bases.

>>54286631
I never said otherwise. Running massive units of tanks with H&C also takes skill. Just a slightly different set of skills than a small unit of heavy tanks.

I was just commenting on German Heavy Tank lists specifically requiring precise positioning and turret facing to deny as many side shots on them as possible.

>>54287449
I just hear a lot of derision for horde-y lists as being "no-skill"; my apologies.

>>54287751
Some games, it's that way, but in Flames your own horde can really trip over itself if you don't know what you're doing

>>54287751
Not my intention at all. And no apology is needed.

>>54288227
THIS.

Large blobs of tanks or infantry also require you to be aware of how they're positioned, so that you don't wind up with a massive dogpile of units all tripping over each other or getting in each other's ways.

>>54288663
>Large blobs of tanks or infantry also require you to be aware of how they're positioned, so that you don't wind up with a massive dogpile of units all tripping over each other or getting in each other's ways

Especially now with the 6" or 8" command bubble.

>>54254765
Cool racism.
eat shit

>>54288905
Yeah, the command distance is a bit rough, but the old chain style could get a bit ridiculous.

>>54289387
Cool indeed. Grow up, children. This is /fowg/, not /b/.

>>54270696
>memes

File: IMG_0685.jpg (117KB, 768x526px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 768x526px

Oh great. Breakthrough Assault is posting speed building and speed painting guides for spam lists. Not that 30 T-55s are horrible themselves, but should we really be encouraging all these copy paste spam lists? It's like LL Matildas in LW all over again.

>>54297303
Except Matilda LW lists actually worked.

>>54283339
A T-54/BMP spam list

>>54294102
That's not me.

>>54297303
I don't mind that they're posting guides on how to quickly build and paint large numbers of units at once.

There are certain armies where it would be useful to do so. Soviets in pretty much any era come to mind.

And I'll admit to having 25 of the things sitting in my to-build queue.

But what I do mind is the normalization of spam lists. For example, "You can run 60 Stuarts!", is not something people should be encouraging as a good thing.

And if I'm not mistaken, whoever is doing the T-55s for Breakthrough assault went Full Spam with them. Something like 50 in total.

And that just seems utterly ridiculous to me.

Perhaps I just don't "get it", but running a horde that fucking large just doesn't appeal to me.

>>54189522
Are snipers ever worth it?

>>54298759
Yeah if you're fighting another infantry company, or if they have artillery and you'd like them to stop shooting with it.

>>54298759
Generally no. As Virus said, they're good if you're defending against infantry (not mechanized infantry or tanks) or if you can get them in range of enemy artillery to pin them. If you're attacking and need to use your mortars or whatever for smoke you can use them to pin the enemy you're trying to assault or the HMGs they're using on you as you advance. But pinning isn't reliable enough to count on it sticking, especially if the enemy CiC is nearby.

We've been tossing around the idea that Sniper hits can't be moved with Mistaken Target. That'd give them a bit more of a niche.

>>54298341
>Perhaps I just don't "get it", but running a horde that fucking large just doesn't appeal to me.

It's gotta be pure power-gamery. No combined arms or other tactical nuance approaching realism, just push your shit up the table until you've pushed NATO into a corner.

Will Giving T-64 songster missile worth it?

>>54301680
I'd pay the extra points.

Out-ranging NATO MBTs with a missile that can be fired in the move? I'd say that's worth it.

>>54302189
This is kind of off topic but could Songster missile really be fired on the move(and hit)in real life?

>>54302428
It's Radio Guided SCALOS so I think it's possible if the gunner can keep the target in his sights.

>>54301500
>other tactical nuance
You try organising 30 tanks in 8" bubbles so they're all keeping out of terrain and getting shots and then we'll talk.

>>54305007
I suppose, if can include fighting against Phil's rules to play as Phil's vision of the Volkspamee as tactics.

What kind of german list should I build that would give a good game against my friend's new army he's building? He's doing 3rd infantry rifle company with a supporting platoon of shermans, wolverines, and calliopes plus some AT guns and stuff.

Looking at the options in fortress italy, I was thinking I might like to do a small company of goring division Pz IIIMs, a tiger, and some kind of infantry support.

File: me_and_my_son.jpg (301KB, 520x610px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 520x610px

>>54293581
Don't Bump Me Or My Son Ever Again

File: Body recovery on knocked out Free French Forces sherman tank (Normandy 1944).webm (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

Grisly reality of a tank being hit in WW2

>>54310101
That has to be the worst job in the army.

>>54310538
There's a story I heard once, that an Army Chaplain attached to one of the American units refused to let anyone else but him clean out burned out Shermans, because in his words "If they saw what happened in there, they'd never climb back in one as long as they lived."

>>54310101
People who try to sell historical footage and put watermarks on it deserve to drown in a whale asshole

>>54310802
That sounds like a bit of a historical myth.

Plausible enough to be 100% believable, but with no real source to attribute it to.

>>54310101
That is absolutely horrifying. God I feel so bad for them.