Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tailgunner wrote:

notprop wrote:I'm pretty sure the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were the real deal (though I await some Grognard controdicting that and pointing out that that model was not actually produced until 8.73 weeks after the scene was actually set therefore was historically incorrect, but forgiveable if taken as light-hearted entertainment under the right circumstances).

I didn't think one had to be a grognard to know that the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were mock-ups based onT-34s. It was a very good conversion though (I love that film!) - so good that they did the same thing for Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. The only real Tiger I that is a runner is in the Bovington tank museum; it was captured in Tunisia, and lovingly restored fairly recently.

Damn grognards and their correct "facts".......mumble....grumble.

You learn something new everyday, a good conversion indeed to get past me and my non existent knowledge.

Well played Mr Eastwood, you win this time! [shakes fist at nothing in particular]

George Spiggott wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:

Aldramelech wrote:You are correct, wargames are all about "what if?" But there is a big fu*king difference between what P describes above and early war Brits vs late war Soviets!

I don't think myself or anyone else would honestly float the idea of any EW vs. LW force in even a casual game

They were eastern front Germans vs desert Brits before Aldramelech mangled his own anecdote. Not even pick up players (with red tanks) will play early war vs late war. Just like nobody plays Wood Elves vs Space Marines.

I once had an idea for an early war panzerkompanie list made up entirely of Panzer IIs and 38(t)s that I could then use in late war as a panzersphah list. I never did it because the differences in tank models and different paint scheme for early and late war would have annoyed me. Of course if I painted them red they'd be equally wrong for both periods. ArbeitsSchu once had a similar idea about using M48 Pattons for a 'Battle of the Bulge' King Tiger force.

Late war vs early war? What was I thinking? I mean that's totally stupid, as stupid as painting your Shermans red maybe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ancientsociety wrote:

Aldramelech wrote:
...we use FOW because it is convenient and quick to play, we tend to ignore BF's lists and points values and use forces that reflect reality rather then what BF would like you to buy more of.

You readily admit FOW isn't historically accurate yet still use it because you can't be bothered using a more realistic complex ruleset!?

Get off your high horse, for god's sake!

Aldramelech wrote:You are correct, wargames are all about "what if?" But there is a big fu*king difference between what P describes above and early war Brits vs late war Soviets!

I don't think myself or anyone else would honestly float the idea of any EW vs. LW force in even a casual game

Aldramelech wrote:You can try and waffle all day long about correct camo colours matey, but what we're talking about here is "Is it OK to paint my Shermans BRIGHT RED" for gods sake.

And just for the record, I have never read a Stephen Ambrose book, pric*.

Man, you seriously need to chill the out. For someone who's middle-aged, you come off as an immature teenager.

OOOO sneaking in edits after people have gone to bed? Very grown up............................

To answer your edit: Your just making gak up now ain't ya? Where do I say I can't be bothered to use a more historically accurate set of rules.
It has nothing to do with can't be bothered and everthing to do with physical time constraints smart arse...........

And as I've said above - LW vs EW? Blimey thats as stupid as painting a Sherman red, what was I thinking?

The Kellys Tigers are from the movie "Battle of Neretva", which was also filmed in Yugoslavia. It's got Yul Brynner in it, and its on my Amazon wish-list.

Aldramelech: Why are you going on about LW vs EW? Nobody suggested that? You yourself moaned about Desert Brits vs EF Germans.

I've not seen much deviation from historical color "palettes", but have seen variations on actually using those palettes. My british horde started in midwar Africa and I just have no interest in buying the same minis multiple times just to have them painted for the "right" theater. So my late war 2nd Household Cavalry force from Hell's Highway is fully painted in a desert sand color scheme, even those armored cars that were never used in the desert because I think the consistent look of the force is better than half desert armored cars and half green armored cars. Also since I really enjoy playing desert themed games my BAR is also painted in desert colors despite the fact I actually used it with Blitzkrieg first. Hehehehe...

My airborne, since they've had the same colors throughout are painted appropriately, or should I say "will" be painted appropriately when fully finished.

I do get the "these are my minis"! attitude some folks have and have no problems encouraging full color creativeity in fantasy and sci-fi based games, but in historical games the colors on the minis really help to effectively represent the period you are playing. Civil war battles would just feel weird between the puce and chartreuse as opposed to the blue and the gray. Of course if someone showed up with bright fire engine red tanks and told me clearly that they are playing list X with the mins used being the correct and identifiable minis from the list, I wouldn't really be bothered by it at all if we played a game or two as long as they were a fun opponent.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:[Damn grognards and their correct "facts".......mumble....grumble.

You learn something new everyday, a good conversion indeed to get past me and my non existent knowledge.

Well played Mr Eastwood, you win this time! [shakes fist at nothing in particular]

For me the litmus test is how quickly do I recognize the conversion. In Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers the rest of the vehicles were so well done that it took me a while to note that they were not actually full vehicles of the type shown. That, in my book, is more important than complete and totally accuracy. At the opposite end of the scale we have movies like The Battle of the Bulge where the patton tanks don't look anything like the german tanks they are supposed to be filling in for and that just ruins it for me when watching films based on history.

Skriker

ArbeitsSchu wrote:The Kellys Tigers are from the movie "Battle of Neretva", which was also filmed in Yugoslavia. It's got Yul Brynner in it, and its on my Amazon wish-list.

Aldramelech: Why are you going on about LW vs EW? Nobody suggested that? You yourself moaned about Desert Brits vs EF Germans.

I was being ironic


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skriker wrote:I've not seen much deviation from historical color "palettes", but have seen variations on actually using those palettes. My british horde started in midwar Africa and I just have no interest in buying the same minis multiple times just to have them painted for the "right" theater. So my late war 2nd Household Cavalry force from Hell's Highway is fully painted in a desert sand color scheme, even those armored cars that were never used in the desert because I think the consistent look of the force is better than half desert armored cars and half green armored cars. Also since I really enjoy playing desert themed games my BAR is also painted in desert colors despite the fact I actually used it with Blitzkrieg first. Hehehehe...

My airborne, since they've had the same colors throughout are painted appropriately, or should I say "will" be painted appropriately when fully finished.

I do get the "these are my minis"! attitude some folks have and have no problems encouraging full color creativeity in fantasy and sci-fi based games, but in historical games the colors on the minis really help to effectively represent the period you are playing. Civil war battles would just feel weird between the puce and chartreuse as opposed to the blue and the gray. Of course if someone showed up with bright fire engine red tanks and told me clearly that they are playing list X with the mins used being the correct and identifiable minis from the list, I wouldn't really be bothered by it at all if we played a game or two as long as they were a fun opponent.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:[Damn grognards and their correct "facts".......mumble....grumble.

You learn something new everyday, a good conversion indeed to get past me and my non existent knowledge.

Well played Mr Eastwood, you win this time! [shakes fist at nothing in particular]

For me the litmus test is how quickly do I recognize the conversion. In Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers the rest of the vehicles were so well done that it took me a while to note that they were not actually full vehicles of the type shown. That, in my book, is more important than complete and totally accuracy. At the opposite end of the scale we have movies like The Battle of the Bulge where the patton tanks don't look anything like the german tanks they are supposed to be filling in for and that just ruins it for me when watching films based on history.

Skriker

I like the Leopard 1 in a Bridge too far myself........................

Skriker wrote:For me the litmus test is how quickly do I recognize the conversion. In Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers the rest of the vehicles were so well done that it took me a while to note that they were not actually full vehicles of the type shown. That, in my book, is more important than complete and totally accuracy. At the opposite end of the scale we have movies like The Battle of the Bulge where the patton tanks don't look anything like the german tanks they are supposed to be filling in for and that just ruins it for me when watching films based on history.

That seems fair. In the case of the German AFVs for those movies, I just liked the fact that they'd clearly tried very hard to get them to look right, and largely pulled it off. Especially the Marder and StuG.

I think the Battle of the Bulge Pattons have a curious kind of kudos now. There's almost something admirable in the filmmakers' total disregard for historical accuracy, even though the 'Tigers' are the stars of the movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:IThe Kellys Heroes (or The Greatest Film Ever Made as I call it) ones are indeed T-34s... The one in Saving Private Ryan was a T-55.

Evidently no answer is complete until you've weighed in

They were T-34s in SPR - you can tell from the wheel spacing and the tracks. There is apparently a Tiger I mock up built on a T-54/55 chassis which belongs to some re-enactors, but that seems to have been done privately.

Before the advent of CGI, the only way to get a full Tiger abteilung would be to fake it with something else, or build one out of T-34s. I just wish someone would start making WW2 movies using that technology, instead of farting about with a mismatch of whatever they had on the lot. MASS BATTLE!! It shouldn't be hard to actually carry that off. If one can animate a million Persians, ten thousand Greeks, or Orcs too numerous to count, one can animate a proper Tiger battalion.

There is a lot of CGI hardware in The Pacific. It doesn't always work, but when it does, it's very effective (some of the later amphibious landing sequences look very convincing). I'm sure someone will do something similar with Panzers at some point.

Tailgunner wrote:

Skriker wrote:For me the litmus test is how quickly do I recognize the conversion. In Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers the rest of the vehicles were so well done that it took me a while to note that they were not actually full vehicles of the type shown. That, in my book, is more important than complete and totally accuracy. At the opposite end of the scale we have movies like The Battle of the Bulge where the patton tanks don't look anything like the german tanks they are supposed to be filling in for and that just ruins it for me when watching films based on history.

That seems fair. In the case of the German AFVs for those movies, I just liked the fact that they'd clearly tried very hard to get them to look right, and largely pulled it off. Especially the Marder and StuG.

I think the Battle of the Bulge Pattons have a curious kind of kudos now. There's almost something admirable in the filmmakers' total disregard for historical accuracy, even though the 'Tigers' are the stars of the movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:IThe Kellys Heroes (or The Greatest Film Ever Made as I call it) ones are indeed T-34s... The one in Saving Private Ryan was a T-55.

Evidently no answer is complete until you've weighed in

They were T-34s in SPR - you can tell from the wheel spacing and the tracks. There is apparently a Tiger I mock up built on a T-54/55 chassis which belongs to some re-enactors, but that seems to have been done privately.

T-55 tracks curve upwards at the front and back. Sprockets are that little bit higher up. T34 tracks sit much flatter.

I can better this one though: Its a mock-up of a Tiger built on a Russian tank...with the engine noise of another tank dubbed over the top, because then it sounds more like a Maybach engine. (If I recall correctly its a Chieftan, )

Here is your Red for your paint job.
Also if the Tanks were red,it would be red primer color.So the field units may paint them as seen fit.

I kind of wonder if the 'primer red' would actually be a tough scheme to pull off. Getting the right tone and feel without it looking either pink or too much like a modern car-style paint job...

The SPR Tigers were indeed T34s, both are no more, they ended up at Bovington where both caught fire whilst being used at Tank Fest.

Aldramelech wrote:]Late war vs early war? What was I thinking? I mean that's totally stupid, as stupid as painting your Shermans red maybe?

No not as stupid, more stupid than painting your Shermans red.

The only time I might vary from the historical paint scheme would be for an army like the Hungarians or Romanians where some of their armour units have different paint schemes. Mt sense of aesthetics just scream that they must all use the same paint scheme. Good thing I stick to the western front

Ghaz wrote:The only time I might vary from the historical paint scheme would be for an army like the Hungarians or Romanians where some of their armour units have different paint schemes. Mt sense of aesthetics just scream that they must all use the same paint scheme. Good thing I stick to the western front

Do not feel bad,i am not the best painter. Tabletop at my best.
Also i cannot paint decent camo,so most of my German armor is painted grey.MAybe i should just stick with my Americans,everthing in olive drab.

Aldramelech wrote:The SPR Tigers were indeed T34s, both are no more, they ended up at Bovington where both caught fire whilst being used at Tank Fest.

That's a shame. I saw one them at Bovington a few years ago. I thought the other had been acquired by someone in the US.

I say go with what you want. Yes it is suppose to be a historical game, but why not do what you want with your mini's you bought and paid for.If no one plays you over a paint scheme they need to re think how they play a game. It is suppose to be a fun game not a complete retelling of history.
At one point the armed forces of any country could have been experimenting with any types of camo. The US tried to do the German/SS smock camo we are familiar with. It didnt work out to well cause MPs mistaken them for Germans and shot at them.

Disliking the idea of an utterly ahistorical scheme does not automatically translate to demanding that all battles be an accurate recreation of history down to the last brass button. Some of us are firmly in the camp of "You should at least try to do it 'right', but we aren't going to set you on fire if your Olive Drab is a bit less drab than it should be."

Lol if people refuse to play you because YOUR toy soldiers aren't painted to the standard or way they like. I wouldn't play them anyways for being smug about figures.

col. krazy kenny wrote:Do not feel bad,i am not the best painter. Tabletop at my best. Also i cannot paint decent camo,so most of my German armor is painted grey.MAybe i should just stick with my Americans,everthing in olive drab.

I think you missed my point. Its not about the skill level. I'm actually quite a good painter. Its like this article on painting Hungarians shows that Hungarian vehicles had a nice three-color camouflage scheme whereas equipment that they got from Germany was left Panzer Grey. I would do the entire army in the Hungarian camouflage even if historically it should be Panzer Grey.

ghostmaker wrote:I say go with what you want. Yes it is suppose to be a historical game, but why not do what you want with your mini's you bought and paid for.If no one plays you over a paint scheme they need to re think how they play a game. It is suppose to be a fun game not a complete retelling of history.
At one point the armed forces of any country could have been experimenting with any types of camo. The US tried to do the German/SS smock camo we are familiar with. It didnt work out to well cause MPs mistaken them for Germans and shot at them.

It isnt supposed to be a fun game. It is supposed to be a fun hobby, and hobbies really only work if everyone is on the same page. Yes you can get away with shenannigans, but only if the people you are playing against have the same expectations as yourself, and you should endeavour to make sure they have those expectations before you plonk the red shermans down, not after.

This is the problem i think i have with alot of people who dont paint their armies, or really fail to participate at all in any aspect before the game starts. The game is the end result. There are several expectations before you get that far, based on what hobby you are about to participate in, and it isnt a BAD THING that the Historical Wargaming Hobby requires some thought and historical accuracy regarding organisation and paint schemes. In fact for most it is the draw card.

If as you say they may have been experimenting with that camo, do some research, cite some sources and suddenly you are participating in the hobby.

Poppabear wrote:Lol if people refuse to play you because YOUR toy soldiers aren't painted to the standard or way they like. I wouldn't play them anyways for being smug about figures.

I believe the whole point of the mess of a thread was that different people have different expectations. If you where going to enter a model in golden demon would you just show up with it primed or bare metal? No of course not.

If you join a club ( not playing at flgs and looking for pick up games) who is into history like Pier's you are already in that mind set and this whole thread is pointless.


If I was going to play a huge game and take pics for say KGN or FOW , would you want to see red shermins? How would you like seeing pink and polka dot panzers in the rule books?

They are your toys do what you want with them, but in the end they are toys just don't be upset if someone doesn't like the way your play with your toys.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Disliking the idea of an utterly ahistorical scheme does not automatically translate to demanding that all battles be an accurate recreation of history down to the last brass button. Some of us are firmly in the camp of "You should at least try to do it 'right', but we aren't going to set you on fire if your Olive Drab is a bit less drab than it should be."

Well put.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GBL wrote:

ghostmaker wrote:I say go with what you want. Yes it is suppose to be a historical game, but why not do what you want with your mini's you bought and paid for.If no one plays you over a paint scheme they need to re think how they play a game. It is suppose to be a fun game not a complete retelling of history.
At one point the armed forces of any country could have been experimenting with any types of camo. The US tried to do the German/SS smock camo we are familiar with. It didnt work out to well cause MPs mistaken them for Germans and shot at them.

It isnt supposed to be a fun game. It is supposed to be a fun hobby, and hobbies really only work if everyone is on the same page. Yes you can get away with shenannigans, but only if the people you are playing against have the same expectations as yourself, and you should endeavour to make sure they have those expectations before you plonk the red shermans down, not after.

This is the problem i think i have with alot of people who dont paint their armies, or really fail to participate at all in any aspect before the game starts. The game is the end result. There are several expectations before you get that far, based on what hobby you are about to participate in, and it isnt a BAD THING that the Historical Wargaming Hobby requires some thought and historical accuracy regarding organisation and paint schemes. In fact for most it is the draw card.

If as you say they may have been experimenting with that camo, do some research, cite some sources and suddenly you are participating in the hobby.

Also well put.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

Poppabear wrote:Lol if people refuse to play you because YOUR toy soldiers aren't painted to the standard or way they like. I wouldn't play them anyways for being smug about figures.

I believe the whole point of the mess of a thread was that different people have different expectations. If you where going to enter a model in golden demon would you just show up with it primed or bare metal? No of course not.

If you join a club ( not playing at flgs and looking for pick up games) who is into history like Pier's you are already in that mind set and this whole thread is pointless.


If I was going to play a huge game and take pics for say KGN or FOW , would you want to see red shermins? How would you like seeing pink and polka dot panzers in the rule books?

They are your toys do what you want with them, but in the end they are toys just don't be upset if someone doesn't like the way your play with your toys.

QFT.

Speaking of red tanks...

That primer is top hole. I can't recall where I saw it, but I have a pic somewhere of a similar vehicle that has been through several hands, and the primer is the only bit that isn't knackered. I see no issue with a "Defence of Berlin" army with a heavy red presence, and rather enjoy the irony of the Red Army destroying the 'Red' army.

I think it is questionable whether more than a handful of Panzers went into battle in just the 'red' primer, but don't think it's a big deal. There are plenty of supposed 'facts' about WWII colour schemes that have been debunked over the years, and you'll always find exceptions to the supposed rule.

I guess my guess on the Red Primer was a good one.I just thought that from work experience with paint.I used to work for JOHN DEERE tractors and also Caterpillar tractors.The both of them have had stuff shipped out in primer red.Kinda funny with their colors being Green and Yellow!But that was for customers to repaint themselves as seen fit.

Tailgunner wrote:I think it is questionable whether more than a handful of Panzers went into battle in just the 'red' primer, but don't think it's a big deal. There are plenty of supposed 'facts' about WWII colour schemes that have been debunked over the years, and you'll always find exceptions to the supposed rule.

Granted. I've found that if you really want to justify something, there is almost always at least one example of any design/scheme/arrangement out there somewhere. Besides which how many tanks does one need to field in a FOW army? You can only fit about five Panthers in a 1750, and that seems like a very reasonable number to be just primered.

Cave_Dweller wrote:Hey all been intrigued by flames of war and seriously thinking of buying a few models or at least the starter kit and giving it a go. I also recently won a destroyed Sherman tank in a painting comp and am eagerly looking forward to painting it.

That being said, I'd be inclined to deviate substantially from the proscribed historical paint jobs and army colors and come up with something totally different. Like maybe paint my Sherman fire engine red or something else experimental and weird.

What I'm wondering is will there be a high degree of...oh how shall I put this...historical snobbery...amongst gamers?

I mean ultimately if I spend the money to paint my toy soldiers how I want them, that's my business. I just don't know anyone who plays it, and I was wondering what the community is like. There's a store in my city where the game has started to become popular and I've seen a game or two in action and everyone looked very serious and older than me (40-50). Not sure if this game attracts big time history buffs or something like that.

I once got a 1 hour lecture on Russian coat buttons because I had painted one less button on their coats than what they really had.

It depends who your group is.

There are obsessive historical gamers out there. Very very very obsessive. Though from my EXP. they generally avoid FoW for various reason. FoW groups are generally laid back... in comparison.

wow i really like this thread, it offers some interesting thoughts on historical accuracy vs freedom of choice.

So just to get some more opinions, a couple of friends and myself are doing an infantry aces campaign. I pitch up to play my friends germans - who's leading the - the Red Skull...