Hi all,
Recently finished painting the cores to 2 Chain of Command forces, using Pendraken models so a battle needn't take up much space at all.
British Platoon
(https://puu.sh/BlRWG/5754d5a753.jpg)
Platoon HQ
Lieutenant
Platoon Sergeant
Piat Team
2" mortar Team
Sections A - C
Corporal
six riflemen
Bren Gun with 3 crew
Platoon Support
2" Mortar
Universal carrier (4 crew, bren gun)
German Platoon
(https://puu.sh/BlS2K/1a71e45ea0.jpg)
Platoon HQ
Unterfeldwebel
Panzerschreck Team
Squads 1-3
Obergefreiter
MG42 with 2 crew
7 riflemen
Platoon Support
Panzerschreck Team
Pak 36 with Stielgranate ammunition
I have a few supports to paint up for each platoon such as additional squads, armoured support and weapons teams - but I am happy with them for a week's worth of work.
Oh my (insert deity/deities of choice), those are incredible. Absolutely amazing.
:-bd =D> :-bd =D>
Just wonderful! Love what you've done :).
Wow!
Those are a bit good!! Great work.
We played quite a lot of CoC with 10mm figures, some multi-based some in pairs. I'm pretty sure we used the distances in the rules - which are pretty close to 10mm scale IIRC. It gave a really good look to the table - with the feel of distance. But if you want / need to play in a small area then dropping the distances to cm from inches would work well to compress the game.
Thanks for the kind words.
@Fred at the moment the plan is to drop to cm, but if/when I build up enough ww2 terrain for a full 6'4' would definitely look good to scale the game back up all the way!
This is 5 star eye candy !
Proves the point that Pendraken 10mm have enough personality and detail to be individually based. Cof C works on what ? 12" = 40 yards . Shows 10mm with detail and good paint work can replace 15mm.
Thank you very much for sharing, and look forward to battle reports! :-bd
Very nice...but that's not a two inch mortar and where's the PIAT? If the Germans have that Panzer-thingy-bazooka-knock-off the Brits should have a PIAT. Also why the Carrier? That should be over in the carrier platoon doing recon, not 'supporting' rifle platoons.
Jolly good chaps!
I put together several platoons for CoC in 10mm when the rules first came out. It didn't mean playing in a smaller area but the ground scale looked more realistic (Rich did tell me once that the ground scale for CoC was somewhere between 15mm and 10mm).
Unfortunately everyone else insisted on playing with "giants", 20mm and even 28mm, which I think really crowds a 6x4 table.
They look ace, and I bet they look much better and in scale on the table than the 28's too!
excellent job on those! :-bd
Quote from: Steeleye on 29 August 2018, 07:13:12 AM
Very nice...but that's not a two inch mortar and where's the PIAT? If the Germans have that Panzer-thingy-bazooka-knock-off the Brits should have a PIAT. Also why the Carrier? That should be over in the carrier platoon doing recon, not 'supporting' rifle platoons.
You are quite right, I chose 3" mortars for ease of "scanning" the battlefield and identifying the mortar single based at a distance.
The PIAT actually to the right of the 2 mortars, hidden mostly behind a man firing his rifle.
As for the carrier - Chain of Command gives many options for "support" and I wanted one of the most iconic AFVs the Brits can take.
Very good stuff. Corse they are numbered, not lettered sections, and the PIAT was a compamy level weapon, which might be issued to a platoon.... ;)
Given that despite their ubiquity no one could quite decide what to do or how to use their Carriers, it's no way unfeasible to have one stooging around "supporting" the infantry. Probably having just brought up a vital under armour (ho-ho) delivery of cigarettes, tea and bully beef sandwiches ;)
Come for the sarnies & cuppa, stay for the gun fire!
Quote from: toxicpixie on 29 August 2018, 11:07:49 AM
Given that despite their ubiquity no one could quite decide what to do or how to use their Carriers, it's no way unfeasible to have one stooging around "supporting" the infantry. Probably having just brought up a vital under armour (ho-ho) delivery of cigarettes, tea and bully beef sandwiches ;)
Come for the sarnies & cuppa, stay for the gun fire!
Spot on - a veteran I knew (D coy, 1st Worcesters, 43rd Div) had to ask
ME what the carriers were for. He never understood them. Bringing up stores and carrying out wounded seems to have been their main role. BUT they are the most manufactured AFV of WW2!
Very nicely done!!!
Terry
Quote from: Dr Dave on 29 August 2018, 01:39:44 PM
Spot on - a veteran I knew (D coy, 1st Worcesters, 43rd Div) had to ask ME what the carriers were for. He never understood them. Bringing up stores and carrying out wounded seems to have been their main role. BUT they are the most manufactured AFV of WW2!
Correct. Memories of the carrier had faded before my time, but as you noted with the images that Nobby pulled up about Korea, it was ubiquitous - it a bit (12mm max ) of armour, it was tracked, and it could to 30mph on a good day/surface.
That little bit of armour and superb traction gave the ability to cross a killing ground rendered impassable by small arms fire. The most common threat to battle field mobility. Its not HE or AP, but the humble round of ball ammo will - with minimum orders of fire control - kill you. 8)
Getting ammo, men, and scrans up the line, and wounded back down. That must be worth a +1 in any rules. The British army 'marched' on the humble carrier.
Without it, we are back to the leather personnel carrier.
Ian makes two historically correct points: First about how sections/platoons and companies are described. He is also spot on about the PIAT. A fact not always appreciated by rule writers.
Whilst Sections may have been numbered I am happier with them lettered to make them more distinct from the German squads in any as yet hypothetical campaign. At the risk of upsetting purists, it works for me.
As for the PIAT, from what I've seen it was up to the company CO to distribute the PIATs an Platoons were as likely as not to have one with them, but I could be wrong. Either way the TooFatLardies have one in every platoon HQ (although this could be to prevent new players instantly losing if an enemy turns up with a single armour asset).
Excellent look: do you have a bit of the 1-2-3 basing going on there too?
Quote from: xccam on 29 August 2018, 08:37:18 PM
Whilst Sections may have been numbered I am happier with them lettered to make them more distinct from the German squads in any as yet hypothetical campaign. At the risk of upsetting purists, it works for me.
As for the PIAT, from what I've seen it was up to the company CO to distribute the PIATs an Platoons were as likely as not to have one with them, but I could be wrong. Either way the TooFatLardies have one in every platoon HQ (although this could be to prevent new players instantly losing if an enemy turns up with a single armour asset).
Point taken. If its late war, a lot of British platoons on point had MG42s- but you won't find that in official weapon issue.
At this level of skirmish, a AT weapon adds balance. The Typhoon will never appear when you really need it. :)
Keep us posted on the game please.
Quote from: Sunray on 29 August 2018, 09:32:22 PM
Point taken. If its late war, a lot of British platoons on point had MG42s- but you won't find that in official weapon issue.
Careful on the MG42. The Worcester's had theirs for a few days then had to get rid of the lot. The neighbouring bttns thought Jerry had broken into the positions when the Worcesters used them at night. Very different beast and sound to the mighty Bren. Curiously, I know firearms designers and trainers who despise the MG42 and think it worse than useless! Too heavy, too hungry, too many barrel changes. Fine in a fixed position - rubbish when moving forward.
Super work on those figures !! :-bd
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Dr Dave on 29 August 2018, 10:24:29 PM
Careful on the MG42. The Worcester's had theirs for a few days then had to get rid of the lot. The neighbouring bttns thought Jerry had broken into the positions when the Worcesters used them at night. Very different beast and sound to the mighty Bren. Curiously, I know firearms designers and trainers who despise the MG42 and think it worse than useless! Too heavy, too hungry, too many barrel changes. Fine in a fixed position - rubbish when moving forward.
Yes, the MB42 has a distinctive rattle. But it was the first of the GPMG - and set the bar. The Germans - unlike the Brits were trained to fire in short bursts - 3to 7 rounds.
I have no experience of the MG42, but cross trained with the Bundeswehr and their M3 variant. It was about 26lb- same as our GPMG (FN) . I noted the M3 had bolt change options that varied the rate of fire.(were they available in WW2???) The GPMG could be a hungry beast - as proved in Falklands/ Goose Green - but Jesus, the weight, the hunger and the barrel changes where all redeemed by the weight of suppressive delivery. Worth all its weight in gold for winning small arms fire fights. If you want a really badly designed MG, then the M60 is the lemon.
Re the PIAT, there is a de facto dichotomy between "issue" and "deployment". Remember it is a weapon not a crew you get. Your platoon/section will have to surrender two of the rifle group to man it. So unless you have a clear and present threat from armour, you toss the PIAT/LAW in the PC - in my days the Bv206 /or 432 - or in WW2 in the back of the carrier . Yes, you can yoump a PIAT/Charlie G with a rifle and full kit- but it retards the effectiveness of the rifleman when he deploys. He will use one or the other. The 66LAW was a godsend. That's why its still in service. Not so much for MBTs, but as a direct support - it will also mallet a lot of APCs and light AFVs. :)
Quote from: Dr Dave on 29 August 2018, 10:24:29 PM
Careful on the MG42. The Worcester's had theirs for a few days then had to get rid of the lot. The neighbouring bttns thought Jerry had broken into the positions when the Worcesters used them at night. Very different beast and sound to the mighty Bren. Curiously, I know firearms designers and trainers who despise the MG42 and think it worse than useless! Too heavy, too hungry, too many barrel changes. Fine in a fixed position - rubbish when moving forward.
And yet they moved forward into Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Balkans and Greece, and a hefty chunk of the European USSR.
There's a lot to be said for combined arms, knowing how to use your weapon, and having 8 spare dudes to carry the extra ammo.
Soldiers get very attached to their favorite weapons: Hence the memoirs praising the Bren, BAR and even that Russian record player thingy.
Even the (of some) Dutch thought their Lewis guns were the best (Nobody else has a 100 round drum!).
Gamers can be incredibly idiosyncratic in their attitude to new weapons.
How many times have you heard a British gamer rubbish the B.A.R. but later heap praise on the German "Assault rifle" designs.
I'm not sure what my point is here, except to point out that the armies with the biggest points weapons didn't always win.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 30 August 2018, 09:36:17 PM
And yet they moved forward into Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Balkans and Greece, and a hefty chunk of the European USSR.
There's a lot to be said for combined arms, knowing how to use your weapon, and having 8 spare dudes to carry the extra ammo.
I'm not sure what my point is here.
Steve, you made your point very well in the second line. I was one of those spare dudes. Sustained fire mode is still around, but its fire and movement that wins the ground.
Cheers,
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 30 August 2018, 09:36:17 PM
And yet they moved forward into Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Balkans and Greece...
... without the MG42. ;)
But the 34 is much the same !
In the section role the Bren was much better...the 34 and 42 have several design holidays in them, in particular no way of holding the red hot barrel when you need to change it ! In the SF role the Vickers was better, if you had liquid to keep it cool. Moving it was an absolute pig, but that was one use for a carrier !
Yes, Lindy's standards slipped this time. Even I, who is not a WW2 miniatures gamer (but I do play the computer sim, Combat Mission), had to raise my eyebrows on a couple of occasions (e.g., even I knew a version of the MG34/42 lives on in the modern German Army - although due to be replaced soon). What about overwhelming artillery support, numbers and air superiority? The responder does not come out of it too well either IMO; a touch of indignation perhaps and totally didn't get why Lindy used the term "Spandau" (which is what the Brits called the German LMG - just as every German tank was "a Tiger" and every German shell "an 88"), spending 20% of his response on that one issue. Good finds, Nobby.
I thought the modern method for settling Youtube disagreements was for the Vloggers to humiliate themselves by doing rubbish boxing.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 01 September 2018, 04:27:09 PM
But the 34 is much the same !
In the section role the Bren was much better...the 34 and 42 have several design holidays in them, in particular no way of holding the red hot barrel when you need to change it ! In the SF role the Vickers was better, if you had liquid to keep it cool. Moving it was an absolute pig, but that was one use for a carrier !
We keep identifying the need for the humble little Carrier ! :)
If you have a full strength Btn then the carrier platoon has about the same fire power as a rifle company, so could be used as a fast reserve....It was also useful for shifting the 3" mortars which had to be close to the front due to very short range.
(https://puu.sh/BxKcz/f77e49f546.jpg)
Added some armour assets to the options for my 10mm ww2 forces, a Hetzer and a Cromwell.
:-bd =D> :-bd
Very nice indeed
Take care
Andy
Nice!
Brill work
Very fun :-bd
Not going to update with all the figures I've painted since the last update - maybe I will at some point who knows - but the current effort is to make a moderately respectable (and portable) wargame surface out of a pinboard. Still a long way to go before it looks good, but here's a start.
(https://puu.sh/Cn1Kn/a29fdb6245.png)
And Merry Christmas!
:-bd =D>
A very creditable start ;)
Cool start
Certainly a good start 8).
(https://puu.sh/Fu08J/328b433456.jpg)
Finally returned to painting some 10mm figures.
Bit of odd white balancing has made the 221 look blue - but I'm certain it's grey!
Nice to see more stuff 8).
Those are fabulous
Those are great! Particularly like the StuG
Really like these! Looking forward to see some more of your recent work!
Cracking work ! :-bd
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Dr Dave on 29 August 2018, 10:24:29 PM
Curiously, I know firearms designers and trainers who despise the MG42 and think it worse than useless! Too heavy, too hungry, too many barrel changes. Fine in a fixed position - rubbish when moving forward.
The ammo and barrel changes, was one of the reasons D-Day was not the disaster they had feared. The troops in the bunkers and Trenches could not get resupplied with ammo and barrels due to the artillery fire, causing asevee drop in the rate of fire.
Quote from: Orcs on 07 April 2020, 09:13:11 AM
The ammo and barrel changes, was one of the reasons D-Day was not the disaster they had feared. The troops in the bunkers and Trenches could not get resupplied with ammo and barrels due to the artillery fire, causing asevee drop in the rate of fire.
Not a lot of people know that (I didn't).
Jolly handy that our lads hadn't forgotten a few old tricks like the 1917 box barrage.
One of my "honorary uncles" who rose to be a major in WW2 and served as, among other things, liaison officer with the Gurkhas used to say that, if you had the choice, take an MG42 in defence and a Bren in attack.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 29 August 2018, 09:19:55 PM
Excellent look: do you have a bit of the 1-2-3 basing going on there too?
There seems to have been no clarification on this? Would anyone care to do so?
Quote from: Ithoriel on 15 April 2020, 09:58:34 PM
One of my "honorary uncles" who rose to be a major in WW2 and served as, among other things, liaison officer with the Gurkhas used to say that, if you had the choice, take an MG42 in defence and a Bren in attack.
If you have to carry it take a Bren - carried an L4 and GPMG - L4 is lighter and you dont have a belt to trip over or snag in the grass.
Insert Quote
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 29-08-2018, 21:19:55
Excellent look: do you have a bit of the 1-2-3 basing going on there too?
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 15 April 2020, 11:48:48 PM
There seems to have been no clarification on this? Would anyone care to do so?
I would think it refers to the basing concept from Mikel Leck, written up in Pikeman's Lament, but quite likely in use before then. That gives a mix of single and multi-basing to make troops a bit easier to move in skirmish / small unit games. Basically for 6 figures, you base them on 3 bases, 1 with 1 figure, 1 with 2 figures and 1 with 3 figures. So you have fewer bases to move, but can still distribute your figures around in a skirmish formation, and can remove different numbers of casualties easily.
Yeah it's pretty much just for casualty removal.
Thank you.