Pendraken Miniatures Forum

Wider Wargaming => Genre/Period Discussion => 20th Century => Topic started by: Agent Brown on 21 August 2011, 06:47:18 PM

Title: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: Agent Brown on 21 August 2011, 06:47:18 PM
Just wondering what the differences are between the BEF and early war Germans with their later counterparts in 10mm? I know there are differences in kit but are these noticeable at 10mm? I ask as I want as much variety in poses as possible and it would laso be handy if I could use my planned early war infantry forces for later war, especially the Brits as they don't change from jackboots to ankle boots.
Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 22 August 2011, 08:35:19 AM
Early war - wore gasmask case on chest, No 3 rifle (yes you can see it), some in old style WWI tunics rather than battledress, no SMG.

The major ones are gasmask, and tunic. You are best to go other way.

IanS

Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: FierceKitty on 22 August 2011, 11:04:29 AM
1040 - kite shields and mail less common; Turks still wearing hair in long braided loops; samurai may actually have worn those silly caps into battle. Sung armies similar to Ming, but fewer firearms, of course.
Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: Hertsblue on 22 August 2011, 05:20:12 PM
Quote from: FierceKitty on 22 August 2011, 11:04:29 AM
Sung armies similar to Ming, but fewer firearms, of course.

Firearms? In 1040?  :o
Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: Agent Brown on 22 August 2011, 06:16:09 PM
OK, I'll have two sets of figures. I thought I might get away with just adding some sten guns to an early war army to make it usable for '44 onwards but if the differences are really noticeable at 10mm I'll just bite the bullet.
And yes, I was aware of the typo in the title but as this isn't TMP I thought get away with it.
Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 22 August 2011, 06:58:24 PM
Well some of us is occasionally polite. Your best bet is to go the other way, use 44 figures and duplicate the Stens.

IanS
Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: Hertsblue on 22 August 2011, 07:07:22 PM
Sorry, twas but a jest.  :)
Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: kustenjaeger on 22 August 2011, 07:38:13 PM
Greetings

I have been reading the history of 136 (1st West Lancs) Field Regiment RA and their slow acquisition of kit following mobilisation, this included battle dress and army gas masks (they used civilian ones in cardboard boxes) in 1939.  They were actually issued 'pikes' (bayonets welded to metal tubes) in 1940 on the East Coast as they were at about 1/3 issue of rifles and considered that their intended use must be to make the enemy die laughing.   

Regards

Edward

Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: FierceKitty on 23 August 2011, 12:36:26 AM
Quote from: Hertsblue on 22 August 2011, 05:20:12 PM
Firearms? In 1040?  :o
Thus the term "fewer".
Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: NTM on 23 August 2011, 10:05:10 AM
Don't the early war figures have pleated pockets  ;)

Seriously though having looked at the pictures the gas mask case on the BEF figs is not too prominent so I reckon you would easily get away with it. Some of the late war Brits would work for 1940 too, just avoid Stens, Piats, cammoed helmets etc.
Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: Hurrah on 23 August 2011, 12:41:54 PM
Quote from: Hertsblue on 22 August 2011, 05:20:12 PM
Firearms? In 1040?  :o

Beware of Ye Olde Tyme-vouygers  :-\
Title: Re: 1040 figures vs later war
Post by: FierceKitty on 23 August 2011, 12:55:57 PM
The ancieny Greeks had a siege weapon usually called a fire-raiser in English. Without going into details, thay counts as a sort of firearm, doesn't it? As, indeed, does a hunk of burning wood used in a neolithic mammoth hunt.
   For a given value of "firearm".