Flames of War General /fowg/: American's OP Edition

Thank you user
Also priming tanks black is ok, right? I don't want the tanks to look TOO dark but black primer is all I had.

Generally, I prime my models either black (for most stuff that will end up approximately dark (which includes german dunkelgelb)) or white, for things I want a bit brighter (generally stuff not for FoW). I also use a light sand colour for desert stuff, mostly because I'm lazy.

So yeah, black primer is fine and dandy.

I don't know GW colors, but you want a sort of tan-yellow mustard color.

Battlefront's paints are good, as are Vallejo paints. Both have a wide range of colors that work well for historical miniatures.

GW's stuff is too cartoony in my opinion. A bit too vibrant and loud.

To be fair, most of the nations of Europe would be a matter of using existing US, German, or Soviet technology with a few individually unique units. That being said, more Warpac nations would be much better than even more NATO nations.

Czechs made the OT-64 SKOT which were used by the CSLA and LWP instead of BTRs. The DANA 152mm artillery system (probably out of scale). And the RM70 grad tatra, also used by East Germany. Hungarians made the FUG a BRDM2 clone, widely exported to Warsaw Pact allies, which they also used as an APC.

The bread and butter is still soviet stuff but nonsoviet warsaw pact does have some flavour unlike some would claim.

I am mainly just salty because I want more Warpac armor.

It's alright to be upset when the same people who are clamoring for various minors like Canadians, Australians or Danes are the same people who are all "hurr durr NSWP are soviet reskins just play soviets!"

Honestly, people at this point are just wish-listing.

We do need more Warpac forces.

Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, etc.

It would also be nice to see more NATO as well.

Dutch, Canadians, French, etc.

But since we have 3 nations in the game so far with 2 being NATO, and the 4th also being NATO, I'll agree that they should probably release a Warpac nation for the next release after the British.

Facts missed:

Soviet book coming out with BTRs and T-80 or 64

East Germans and Canadians next year.

Brit book will be called Iron Maiden and has more plastics.

>Iron Maiden

\m/ Rock on! \m/

(Yes, yes. I know. Not that Iron Maiden.)

Any word on what the Brits will be getting?

Please let there be Harriers.

>Iron Maiden
God, I wish. I'm going to have to stomach my reflexive dislike.

No idea what most of their stuff will be but we know it's Chieftains for the tank, those were previewed a while ago.

Plastic pumas? Dear gods, im dead?
Hope they'll also come with pak, stummel and kwk 38 options

This also appears to have been missed from that post, but the puma kit makes all four varieties of puma. The M10 kit makes M10Cs and M10 Jacksons, also.

I'm surprised they're making the Puma in plastic before the Tiger, especially for the sake of the GF9 Tanks game. M10 is a logical choice.

I think they will at least be able to include the puma into Tanks. I was thinking Tigers would be next for the same reason, but I think the /fowg/ consensus was that Tanks was just an extra way of selling plastic kits, and not something that would drive plastic kit production.

>Confirmed for Puma
>plastic pumas
>puma kit makes all four varieties

NOW they do this....

oh, no one re-posted this?

i will post the old to compare to

as promised

Thank fucking Christ. This is an encouraging sign from Battlefront that they're actually capable of listening to the constant litany of complaints about how friggin' OP he was.

It's nice, but they also said Americans aren't getting any points adjustments, so I expect they'll still have bazooka spam, jumbos, the sherman circus special rules, etc at cheap point levels.

The only real problem with Jumbos, is how you can outfit your Headquarters with them, and double-stack the damnable things in a platoon. The sherman-circus of special rules issue has more to do with how useless the Fast Tank rule is, and how it's effectively a circumvention of it. Detroit's Finest should really just be Fast Tank, and Fast Tank should just provide 14" standard movement. The 36" double-time could be left out, in all honesty. Yes, I realize this would benefit a LOT of different vehicles with Fast Tank.

fuck to the yes.

my commander will be a custom resculpt, Eddie be thy name!

youtube.com/watch?v=0sFIB_L481U&t=3m33s

and...per image

youtube.com/watch?v=dTaD9cd8hvw

How do they justify Detroit's Finest in the first place? I just don't know where they got that idea. I mean, there are so many tanks that go fast that are still slower than a Sherman with that rule.

"It had a really good engine".

...

>Iron Maiden

Yesssssssssss

kekimus maximus

i still need to finish those little shits....

so russian heavy assualt guns

ISU 152 vs SU 152.
is the extra armour worth the extra cost. i can pretty much run 15 SUs or 10 ISUs, more guns or more armour?

that armor is gonna help out more than you know in LW

>FA 7 to FA 9
No it won't. Not for that cost.

Meh. ISU-152 are overpriced by quite a bit, due to the change over to V3. They were collatoral damage and got hit with the bunker buster nerf, and never got repriced accordingly. So you pay a lot for that FA 9 that only moderately helps against Panzer IVs that are keeping their distance. The real problem the SU-152s have, is their limited platoons size. But if you spam them, and support them with shit like KV-85s, it's a crazy fun list to run.

The justification comes from the improved engine the Shermans received, in the late(r) models. The problem is that they weren't the only tanks to receive improved engines with more horsepower, and other tanks (like the T-34-85) were still quicker and more maneuverable.

Listening to the podcast interview with Wayne, it seems that BF was initially planning to do a digital release of East German rules alongside the West Germans, using already available models (Afghantsy style).
However, that got delayed because they decided to instead release them as a small book with new minis accompanying it.

Also, Brits were at one point intended to be released before the Germans, but things got swapped around because the Brits apparently required more plastic kit production...

Well yeah the British have their own different artillery gun, and don't use the M119 as much as the Germans.

>So, what are you currently working on?

At the moment I'm working on another soviet book for Team Yankee. I can't really tell you too much about it. But yeah, I can give you some tidbits. Like it contains BTRs, so the eight wheel APCs the Russians used. So the Motor Rifle Regiments usually had a battalion of guys in BMPs either 1s or 2s depending on the regiment, but the other two battalions in the regiment will be in the wheeled BTRs.

>Is this gonna be a Warsaw Pact release for a different nation or is this gonna be a supplement to the soviets themselves?

This one will be a supplement for the soviets but Phil has actually been working on a East German, it was originally going to be kinda a little bit of a pamphlet, like the Afgantsy one. But we decided to make it into a small book now so actually the East Germans are going to come out at some point. So that'll be the first non-soviet Warsaw Pact force we'll do.

>We had a listener ask if there was a reason why the DDR wasn't put in the original Leopard book, you didn't release the Germans all at one time, was there a plan to do that or...?

When Leopard was finished Phil decided "we probably should put the East Germans out now as well" so that's when Phil started doing work for the East Germans. It ended up coming out as part of the same package (sort of) as follow on material after Leopard. Now we decided Phil's done a lot of stuff - kinda cool options, gonna take the opportunity to put a couple of vehicles in there that will also come out in the Russian book later.

Another interesting point is that BF are planning to translate the Vietnam and AIW stuff to Team Yankee, though probably in a different points era for balance reasons.

This would likely also include the Yom Kippur War to expand things further, including stuff like ATGMs for the Egyptian side.

Anyone got any good sources for American desert camoflages? I know the brits had a load of crazy schemes, and I assume it'd have been a new area for the Americans as well.

How much of that do you think was sincere, and not just "yeah sure we can do that". Seems like they were leading him along with some of the questions.

>Anyone got any good sources for American desert camoflages?
Look at First Gulf War stuff, user

I think he might mean for WWII.

As far as I know, the US didn't really use camouflage in North Africa in WWII.

>only moderately helps against Panzer IVs that are keeping their distance

FA9 will force a roll of bail on a 1 only at range vs AP11. the fuck?

you shut your whore mouth.
shit standards of a coward.
if you can get a 3+ armor save, you are good

>I fail reading comprehension
Yes, I did say it moderately helps against Panzer IVs, or anything with AT 11 hiding at long range. But in LW, it's not like there isn't plenty of AT 13+ being thrown around.

They've done it a few times in the past. BAR and American TDs, for one.

It's an abstraction. It's not a speed thing, it's a mobility thing getting manifested at the tactical level as a greater movement rate. American tank units are operationally very mobile due to good construction.

>Yes, I did say it moderately helps against Panzer IV
You mean changing vulnerability to near invulnerability?
>isn't plenty of AT13
Debatable. And if they take that, they're not taking other things, reserving other platoons, etc. That's an advantage in of itself.

>>Yes, I did say it moderately helps against Panzer IV
>You mean changing vulnerability to near invulnerability?
No. As in it is of moderate help, because it gives you added protection against things like Sherman 75mm, Panzer IVs, StuGs, and any other medium tank lacking in AT by LW standards.

>>isn't plenty of AT13
>Debatable. And if they take that, they're not taking other things, reserving other platoons, etc. That's an advantage in of itself.
Very well, let us debate this. American 76mm is AT 13 in LW, and comes in large quantities across all post-Normandy lists (you know, the only US tank lists you see). Any given sherman platoon will at least have 2, and possibly 4 of these. Soviets have AT 12 in bulk numbers, at such an extremity that dealing with FA 9 is a matter of number lf dice, not denial of saves. And even then, AT 15 and 16 is not in short supply, and most often seen with rerolls to hit. British have Fireflies and AC 30 Challengers, both of which are at least AT 14 in their worst books, and blow through FA 9 without any problem at AT 15. Coupled with long range rerolls and Veteran/smoke, makes FA 9 is meaningless in this engagement. And Germans of course have Panthers, PZ IV/70s, Jagdpanthers, Jagdtigers, 88s with extra crew, and a many more.

AT 13 or more in LW is super common, where players are fielding tanks and AT guns. Because every army list pretty much has to have some AT 13 or higher.

But the big issue lies in cost. 25pts to upgrade from FA 7, to FA 9, on a vehicle that cannot move and shoot against any mobile vehicle, is shit. I like the ISU-152. It is one of my favorite tanks, and I lovingly painted 3 of the damn things. But given the option, I run them as SU-152 to save 75pts if I take them at all. Otherwise I just stick with ISU-122s.

>and any other medium tank lacking in AT by LW standards.
You mean with a very typical LW AT value?
>comes in large quantities
Hypothetically. In practise, not so much.
>Soviets have AT 12
They -can- have.
>not in short supply
Except it usually is in most lists.
>British have
A very small number of tanks in the average list.
>AT 13 or more in LW is
Possible, but most things don't have it, and is situational as hell if it's going to see productive use.
>on a vehicle that cannot move and shoot against any mobile vehicle
If you're playing Soviets, single turn mobile firepower is a limitation you really should have worked out by now.

>>and any other medium tank lacking in AT by LW standards.
>You mean with a very typical LW AT value?
It's not 12 or 13, so not typical.
>>comes in large quantities
>Hypothetically. In practise, not so much.
Omnipresent in any list with tanks or AT guns, worth mentioning, that is not trying to be a gimmick list (armored cars, su-76s).
>>Soviets have AT 12
>They -can- have.
They -will- have, unless they are no-tank Strelk. Even Matilda spam will take AT 16 to cover it's ass.
>>not in short supply
>Except it usually is in most lists.
You know damn well that if Americans are *light* on AT 13+, they're not running tanks and are making up for it with integrated AT that doesn't give a fuck about +2 to your Front Armor.
>>British have
>A very small number of tanks in the average list
At Veteran level. Fielded in every brit list worth running. And only one of them is more than capable of gutting a 3 tank, trained FA 9 platoon, on it's own.
>>AT 13 or more in LW is
>Possible, but most things don't have it, and is situational as hell if it's going to see productive use.
This is a subjective statement opening with a vague and misleading proposition due to the fact that "most things" can also mean infantry, artillery bombardments, halftracks, recon, etc.

List building in FoW means you are preparing to face a wide array of potential threats, from armor, to infantry, to air, to ambush, etc. It is not situational to expect anti-tank assets with an AT of 13 or more to see "productive use", and therefore assume you won't need then. It's good practice to have them regardless in LW, so that they're there when you will need them.
>If you're playing Soviets, single turn mobile firepower is a limitation you really should have worked out by now.
If you're actually used to playing Soviets, you are well aware of the difference between maneuvering and having a +1 penalty to hit, and maneuvering and being unable to hit at all with a bunker buster assault gun.

What are you bringing them to kill? Because that's going to decide if the FA 9 is worth it. If you're bringing them in to kill infantry and guns, FA 9 will make you very tough to the mid-weight AT guns that are generally used to drive off medium tank assaults. If you're looking to use them against tanks... First, consider other tanks for the job. Bunker Buster really sucks against tanks. Second, what tanks are common in your area? If everyone's doing early LW mediums, where AT 13+ isn't common, get the ISUs. If it's the more common LLW "Fireflies, E8s, and Panthers, oh my" sort (where you're regularly looking at more than 4 AT 13+ shots), get the cheaper SUs.

>AT 13 isn't super common

Thats the AT value of the 152 though...

Personally, I went with the SU 152. The amount you save, even with less per platoon, helps immensely with getting more firepower on the table. Add in that they have the same top armor, almost the same side armor, and access to tank riders, and theyre an excellent value to fight infantry lists, or any tank list stupid enough to let you sit still without being smoked (not many)

My main annoyance is that they include the soviet "fifty cal" in the box, yet we cant take it on those tanks. Its a shame because that would be immensely helpful.

Theyre not the best tank in the world, but because theyre so cheap, you can easily fit in support for proper AT work or zippy assault elements like KV1s's or KV8s's. Ive only run the list twice but had a lot of fun both times.

If you're bringing them to deal with infantry and guns, then there are other breakthrough gun options that are better for that purpose. The 152s are only ever worth it if your opponent is stashing everything in actual buildings (not ruins). Otherwise just splurge for the more useful 122s, that can actually engage tanks.

Yes, WWII.

Really, nothing? Given the breadth of schemes for the british and germans that seems implausible...

It'd be really nice if they adjusted the ISU-152 price tag to actually reflect it's bunker buster penalty. 105pts per tank is too much for what you're getting. IMO it should be dropped by 15pts per tank. This would bring it closer in line with the SU-152, and Brumbar (which is 70pts for CV).

"The Ford V8 engine improved the performance of the M4A3 series. It's improved power gave them a good top speed, while it's ruggedness and reliability allowed them to take advantage of it without worrying about breaking down"

It explicitly says they get it because they drive fast. Furthermore, why would operational mobility matter in a company-scale game where everyone's in cannons range of each other? If it is meant to be operational mobility something like "rerolls for reserves" or whatever would fit better.

I really wish people would stop submitting their headcanons of rules as explanations.

Except that if you lower the cost for the ISU-152 due to bunker buster, you really should do the same to the SU-152, since it's the same frickin' gun.

>to actually reflect it's bunker buster penalty
"Can't hit tanks that aren't bogged/bailed if you moved"? Pretty sure the +2 for H&C and RoF 1 is already effectively doing the same.

heavy assault guns dont get hen n chicks, same as heavy tanks if I remember right

You are thinking of the SU-100, which has Hen and Chicks. ISUs have the normal +1 penalty for ROF 1, but don't have H&C.

This page isn't good with citations, but it could be a starting point for you research:
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/M3_Lee_Grant.php

The SU-153 is 80pts per tank. The ISU-152 is 105pts per tank. For comparison purposes, a Confident Veteran Brumbar (the culprit of the Bunker Buster nerf) is 70pts per tank. And it has Front 9, Side 5 (2 less than ISU), Top 1, Overloaded, half the range (all three favor short anyways), an AA MG built in, and German rules (compared against Volley Fire).

So yeah, the SU-152 probably could be about 5 or 10 points cheaper as well, but 80pts isn't a bad deal.

Man, compare how great all the British ones are to how cruddy the US ones look.

Thanks, anyway.

The US wasn't exactly a big advocate of camouflage during WW2. Few and far between.

missing-lynx.com/gallery/usa/m4a1midtascasz_1.html

But all the color photos I've seen of American tanks showed them in olive drab and an unintentional coat of dust.

Anyone know why the Brits are getting Chieftains instead of Challenger 1s? The Challenger 1 entered service in '83, a year before TY takes place.

probably werent as common as chieftains at that point. Its similar to why americans got the base M1 and not the upgunned version first

The M1A1 doesn't exist at the time TY is set, it was manufactured from 86 and TY is set in 85. Challengers exist, they're just rarer.

>Challengers exist, they're just rarer.
There's your answer.

Could be they get both

Yeah but that makes sense though. The M1A1 didn't even enter into production until 1986.

If we're going by most common, though, that's the M60A3.

I suspect it's got more to do with the fact that Chieftains are going to be an interesting glass-cannon kind of niche, especially when combined with TOGs, that make them a non-copy-paste MBT NATO list.

Of course, we were also told we're getting more than the usual amount of plastic kits for the Brits, so it might just be both.

>iron maiden

I want a 15mm Maggie as a tank commander
Deffentely getting gonna wait for brits for Team Yankee

She looks surprisingly badass.

I want Reagan as a US tank commander. BF, make it happen.

Maggie is clearly in a Challenger here and since this photo was posted on bf's website i guess brits are gonna get the Chally

We've literally seen previews of the plastic chieftain, so we might get both but just challengers isn't happening.

Might be like the Best Germans getting the Leo 1 and 2.

I'm hoping if we get Chieftains they're also plastic. The Leo1s were fucking horrible.

Why did Michael Dukakis's tank photo get laughed at so much more? (Honest question, I was little back then.)

You need to bear in mind...US forces operated in Algeria/Tunisia: it's not "the desert", it can be arid in places but is much greener than where the 8th Army was fighting. Olive Drab worked fine there, British forces in the same area were mostly SCC2 Brown or Khaki Green with a few camo schemes. But they had official camo schemes whereas the US was still pretty new to that stuff and the US wasn't really big on camo in general in WW2.

The US does have a few unique things in North Africa e.g. the yellow bands and stars on Lees and Shermans (which were later dropped), which can make for a unique force. Also, a lot of dust, which sort-of worked like camo over the OD base colour (pic related).

Good point, I keep forgetting that North Africa was Rome's breadbasket.

We might get it since the Challenger 1 was in service in 1985

Having absolutely no idea who he is I guess it's because he looks like a goober.

The guy who lost to George Bush (Sr.) in the 1988 US presidential election.

Interesting to see curvy and angular Lees and Shermans in the same shot.
>Real M4A1s have curves

She's getting posted every other thread now. I still have no idea who she is.

Looks like an M4A3.

Back to olive drab and dust.

Could be M4A2 as well, kind of hard to tell from the front. E8 suspension in either case.

As far as I know there's no such thing as an M4A2E8.

Also you know full well that's not who I'm talking about.

There might also have been M4s (just plain M4) with large hatches and HVSS too. Pretty frustrating when you're trying to identify them!

A quick look on wikipedia says that there's both A2 and A3 E8s (I also seem to recall that Fury was a -A2-). Neither of them, however, was made with 75mm guns.

Have a gup as a consolidation, then

Until I did a look around, I would have said that no M4s were made with large hatches and HVSS. However, there is apparently M4(105)HVSS, so I stand corrected.

But yeah, seeing a sherman only from the front is kind of frustrating.

Yeah, checking I'm thinking of the M4A2E4 that was never produced.