Help support TMP


"Khurasan releases 15mm M1A2 and US Modern Infantry" Topic


100 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the 15mm Sci-Fi Message Board

Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2004) Message Board


3,786 hits since 3 Jan 2013
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 

khurasanminiatures03 Jan 2013 9:04 p.m. PST

We are very pleased to release the first codes of our ultra-modern US models in 15mm scale. When we say, "ultra-modern," we mean as of right now!

This line will contain both vehicles and infantry, and we have both for you today.

US Army M1A2

The first vehicle is the M1A2 SEP, the most current configuration of this formidable tank. The kit is a mixture of resin and pewter.

Also available are the squad and platoon infantry elements of the US Army. (With just a little fudging, you could probably use them as Marines as well.) These are available either with or without protective eyewear, and with or without separate night vision devices. Every effort has been made to provide models with the most up to date uniforms and equipment. The men are dressed in a mix of armour as is often the case in the field -- some wearing various degrees of knee protection, some with the groin armour, and some not. The men all wear the hydration pack on their backs.

The great Mike Broadbent sculpted these, and I wish to thank Jake Rose who lent some technical help on the design of the models and force mixture.

The basic infantry squad has a squad leader (M4), two team leaders with (M4), two riflemen (M4) two SAW gunners (M249) and two grenadiers (M4/M203).

squad1

There are two different basic squads, with different M4 poses so that all your squads don't look the same on the tabletop. Above is the first squad.

squad2

And above is the second squad. These are both shown without protective eyewear but are also available with the eyewear.

platoon set

To expand your infantry force up to platoon level, we have the assets seen above. They are: platoon sergeant, second lieutenant, RTO, medic, walking M240 team, prone M240 team, shooting Javelin team, advancing Javelin team, forward observer team, marksman with EBR, and marksman with bolt rifle. This set is an example of models with protective eyewear, but it is also available without the eyewear.

As you may have noticed, separate bipods are provided for the M249 and M240 if you want to use them -- it's a great way to further distinguish the automatic weapons.

advanced grenadiers

Because we love the new grenade launchers in use or evaluation, we have included a pack of those too! There are two poses of grenadiers without protective eyewear with the revolutionary XM-25 "Punisher," and four grenadiers with the M320 on their M4s -- two with protective eyewear and two without. (Unfortunately, due to a mixup, the above photo shows two kneeling men with the M203 instead of the M320, but the set has the M320s.)

night vision

Not content with that, we have also added yet another option -- to add 10 sets of night vision devices! Now these are quite small, as can be imagined, but if you want to fuss with adding them they make the models look great, as can be seen on the above figurine.

More vehicles are coming soon, and we would definitely be willing to consider company and higher elements for the infantry. Troop of Shewe painted the M1A2 and Rafa painted the infantry, here in Multicam.

Available now, at this link:

link

Personal logo MrHarold Sponsoring Member of TMP03 Jan 2013 9:21 p.m. PST

wow…amazing. Great poses and paint jobs.

Dragon Gunner03 Jan 2013 9:33 p.m. PST

Nice sculpts, ultra modern is not my thing but I might purchase the platoon assets and make some head swaps.

Khurasan who are they going to fight besides insurgents?

khurasanminiatures03 Jan 2013 9:37 p.m. PST

Seventy-two models at a time, Dragon Gunner … seventy-two models at a time. grin

Personal logo Brigadier General Supporting Member of TMP03 Jan 2013 9:38 p.m. PST

Very cool.

Adam name not long enough03 Jan 2013 9:39 p.m. PST

Your 15mm figures are truly amazing.

Dragon Gunner03 Jan 2013 9:45 p.m. PST

@Khurasan

I did not imply you had to crank out 72x2 for an opponent. I was wondering if you had plans for some real opposition beyond the current standard insurgents. My biggest objection to ultra modern is its all IED and ragtag insurgents.

khurasanminiatures03 Jan 2013 9:53 p.m. PST

Matter of fact, as it so happens I am making an alien invasion force for them to face -- based on the greys of popular culture, who are the Science Caste of a whole civilisation of different castes.

The Science Caste has decided the human civilisation is no risk, but after great argument the War Caste decides to invade anyway to destroy human civilisation. The Science Caste is very cool to this idea, and some radical anti-invasion elements actually go so far as to assist the humans. I already have the "grey alien 'terp with US Army liaison" set made. grin

More on all this later. The War Caste Manoeuvre Element, their main fighting vehicle, has got to be seen to be believed. The War Caste are quite different from greys themselves, though still small -- they are crusty and have nasty weapons. While they use eight foot tall war robots called Kallinects as their main shock force, the War Caste are willing and quite able to mix it up in infantry combat themselves -- they are virtually fearless, and have much higher tech and intelligence than human forces.

Ooooor … you can have these US Army forces fight Russians, or anyone else out there in modern what-ifs. Or zombies, Godzilla or what-not. wink

clkeagle Inactive Member03 Jan 2013 11:02 p.m. PST

@Dragon Gunner – sorry if any of this sounds snippy. It's just something that seems to be an odd topic of discussion. :)

What would you consider to be "real" opposition to a tabletop army consisting of present-day US forces? I'm curious what modern gamers like to play/want to play.

If someone is fielding a future US army wearing Land Warrior uniforms and fighting with yet-undesigned XM-101A Schwarzkopf tanks, then I completely understand fighting against another organized nation. That's fun hard Sci-Fi stuff, and that's why we have figure ranges like Khurasan's Nova Respublik and Oddzial Osmy's NVL.

But if the goal is to field a modern and accurate US force, wearing OCP and operating Abrams tanks, they generally shouldn't be fighting other than asymmetrical opponents. The US military depicted by these new figures is the same force which annihilated the entire Iraqi military in 20 days. (Heck, these figures are actually a generation newer since we were still wearing BDUs/DCUs in '03.)

There aren't many plausible third-world opponents that can't be wargamed with Cold War-era minis. And conflict between first-world nations is simply not going to happen in today's world. The Godzilla/UFO scenarios Jon talked about are more plausible than something like the Red Dawn remake. :)

-Chris K.

Dragon Gunner03 Jan 2013 11:37 p.m. PST

"What would you consider to be "real" opposition to a tabletop army consisting of present-day US forces?"- clkeagle

That is a good question! I can't think of anyone that can stand up to the USA in conventional warfare. The Russians and Chinese might provide good resistance. The Iranians would probably get annihilated like the Iraqis. The EU has some good kit but they are our allies.


"But if the goal is to field a modern and accurate US force, wearing OCP and operating Abrams tanks, they generally shouldn't be fighting other than asymmetrical opponents"- ckeagle

That might be your goal or someone elses. My question was geared towards potential conventional opponents that could provide traditional battles. I was not expecting Khurasan to announce more scifi miniatures when I posed the question but they are welcome also.


"There aren't many plausible third-world opponents that can't be wargamed with Cold War-era minis"-ckeagle

You stated the obvious!

"The Godzilla/UFO scenarios Jon talked about are more plausible than something like the Red Dawn remake. :)"-ckeagle

Never saw the remake and that last part was slightly sarcastic for a closing statement and not needed. Please don't make assumptions…

Sloppypainter03 Jan 2013 11:37 p.m. PST

Just when I thought I was done with moderns in 15mm you HAD to release these, didn't you? Love them!

BlackWidowPilot Supporting Member of TMP Fezian03 Jan 2013 11:54 p.m. PST

Canadians, Dragon Gunner! Canadians are evil and MUST be destroyed!evil grin


Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

"Let's blame Canada! Let's blame Canada!"evil grin

Moqawama Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 3:01 a.m. PST

"The US military depicted by these new figures is the same force which annihilated the entire Iraqi military in 20 days"


My grandma would have annihilated Irak's military after a decade of siege and embargo which killed 3,300,300 people (among them 750,000 children).

picture

Personal logo Lluis of Minairons Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 4:47 a.m. PST

Not my period, but really amazing anyway.

Golan207204 Jan 2013 5:06 a.m. PST

Looks great! An am eagerly awaiting the Science and war Castes!

I me mine Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 6:32 a.m. PST

Wow, those are kool. You've done it again.

Personal logo MrHarold Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 6:46 a.m. PST

Love the idea of the greys and a "Battle LA" type game…

Personal logo Buckeye AKA Darryl Supporting Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 6:48 a.m. PST

Very nice figures! I am tempted, SO tempted! But I need to buy Chaco War figures first!

Not sure what Moqawama even means with his post. Seemingly he has an axe to grind or I have missed something completely.

moocifer Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 6:55 a.m. PST

Very nice range. Look forward to seeing the "Greys" ..

(I make fun of others) Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 6:58 a.m. PST

Not sure what Moqawama even means with his post. Seemingly he has an axe to grind or I have missed something completely.

Think he was pretty clear, actually. In response to assertions that the US Army crushed Iraq in 2003, he's reminded us that for the decade before that Iraq was placed under crushing sanctions. Whilst the regime and military elites got what little goods came into the country, and the people were the ones to suffer, surely this still had some effect on Iraq's fighting capability.

Personal logo MrHarold Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 7:12 a.m. PST

And, of course, this is not the place to discuss this. There are plenty of other forums to discuss your political views.

Micropanzer Wargame Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 7:18 a.m. PST

truly awesome figs

(I make fun of others) Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 7:20 a.m. PST

And, of course, this is not the place to discuss this. There are plenty of other forums to discuss your political views.

Is this just the place to point out how invincible the United States is? That's not political? The idea of what's political and what is on-topic is very interesting on TMP. Remember that Moqawama's comment was in response to some highly charged comments.

"The Godzilla/UFO scenarios Jon talked about are more plausible than something like the Red Dawn remake. :)"-ckeagle

Never saw the remake and that last part was slightly sarcastic for a closing statement and not needed. Please don't make assumptions…

That's interesting, for more than one reason, coming from someone who has just claimed that the US military has no serious rivals.

Nice figures by the way. grin

Personal logo MrHarold Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 7:26 a.m. PST

While I don't want to contribute to tangents, I would feel it's appropriate to point out how militarily powerful the forces depicted by these figures are, much like pointing out how powerful Roman legions could be (for instance).

Much as pointing out that an Iraqi force invading Kuwait utterly pushed them aside. That is not a political statement, that is fact. That would be the difference, to me anyways.

(I make fun of others) Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 7:28 a.m. PST

Well, in that case it's equally on-point to mention that one of the military forces that was so easily defeated was being supported by an economy that had been crushed by a decade of sanctions, no?

Just as the Ardennes Offensive was defeated at least in part by supply shortages.

Personal logo MrHarold Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 7:33 a.m. PST

I think that's a much more reasonable way to put it, and since it directly relates to military training, readiness and equipment is much more related to a Wargaming/Miniatures forum than what was posted before.

But, of course, that's just my opinion.

(I make fun of others) Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 7:57 a.m. PST

I don't think there's any difference between the trash-talking tone of Moqawama's response, and the self-congratulatory tone of the messages he was responding to, TBH.

What's interesting to me is where people sit up and take notice that a discussion is "getting political" -- which usually means "getting political in a way I don't agree with." grin

RazorMind04 Jan 2013 8:08 a.m. PST

Nice figures, looking forward to the Greys stuff, sounds like fun!

Dragon Gunner04 Jan 2013 8:40 a.m. PST

"That's interesting, for more than one reason, coming from someone who has just claimed that the US military has no serious rivals"- Porfirio rubirosa

My comment was based purely on military fighting capability, no politics, no drama and certainly no dead children. There was no "self congragutlations" in my question, if I was from another country the question would still be the same. Can you think of anyone that can offer a reasonable convnetional fight to the USA at this time?

(I make fun of others) Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 9:04 a.m. PST

Of course -- many nations can. The US cannot likely not bring its entire force to bear on any one nation, like it did in the first Iraq war.

You mentioned Iran but you should note that Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is a constructed nation, but Iran is an ancient nationstate. Iranian troops would be a much more formidable opponent than the Iraqis were. This was the case in the Iran/Iraq War, after the first invasion by Iraq was defeated -- it was the Iranians on the attack and the Iraqis sitting in trenches and relying on firepower. Iran also has a much larger population base and more raw materials. There's really little comparison.

The same could be said for the Chinese -- who are often underestimated. The NATO forces did in Korea, which was a mistake. The Chinese did not overrun the NATO troops in their initial large intervention because they were in yellow hordes, as is often claimed. They did so because their infiltration tactics, learned through years of conflict, were simply better than the American/NATO tactics of relying on massive firepower. This remained so until the war became one of attrition, where firepower usually wins.

The Indians also underestimated the Chinese, who have beat them in modern war as well.

Need I go on? Korean soldiers are extremely tough opponents, as anyone who is a veteran of the Korean War will tell you. And so on and so forth.

Even the Western superiority in tank tech may or may not be decisive, depending on the terrain, and modern ATGMs have come a long way toward defeating the advanced composite armour of many vehicles.

PS: you might want to rethink your belief that stating the invincibility of the USA is not self-congratulatory. As history has amply proven, there is no such thing as an "invincible military."

Arrigo04 Jan 2013 9:49 a.m. PST

'The same could be said for the Chinese -- who are often understimated. The NATO forces did in Korea, which was a mistake. The Chinese did not overrun the NATO troops in their initial large intervention because they were in yellow hordes, as is often claimed. They did so because their infiltration tactics, learned through years of conflict, were simply better than the American/NATO tactics of relying on massive firepower. This remained so until the war became one of attrition, where firepower usually wins.'

UN not NATO first, let's get history straight. Infiltration does not overrun anyone. The unit overrun were not relying on extensive firepower (the first one were ROKA… and again the Republic of Korea is not a NATO member despite being the home of some of the best food and girls of the world… and of Academy models too!). The RCTs from the 7th Infantry and the 1st Cavalry were overrun by massive infantry assaults. The second infantry division was mauled at Kunu-ri by walking in an ambush, you can chalk that to infiltration but it is not 'overrun', plus Colonel Freeman insubordination had also something to do with it. And hordes were employed at Haguru-ri and Gloster Hill.

Now after having digressed pointlessly… I agree that counterinsurgency is quite boring as tabletop encounter… no wait you are not doing any COIN in usual 15mm games, we are more or less doing light infantry action that happen to be part of a COIN context… and combined arms actions are much more interesting. Of course CA tactics does not need to have always tanks on both sides and thus decent encounters can be played also against insurgents. But I reckon that in 15mm and fielding M1 and M2 it is better to have some regular opposition like the Iranians, the Russians or the Chinese, all quite competent forces that can present interesting tactical challenges (and also operational, but short of having a stadium and an appropriate budget operational actions do not concern 15mm…). Russian equipped troops and a T90 Vladimir would be quite nice. Then I can do the Russian invasion of the Transmash Republic and the PLA/US Army response…

said that MAYPO!!!! These will be mine! Great job Khurasan!

(I make fun of others) Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 10:31 a.m. PST

The Chinese did not swamp the UN forces with men in the attacks in late 1950. Read Russell Spur's book Enter the Dragon for a useful corrective to that old saw.

khurasanminiatures04 Jan 2013 11:08 a.m. PST

Arrigo, the T-90A "Vladimir" is designed and cast up, just waiting for paintup….

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 11:11 a.m. PST

picture

Dragon Gunner04 Jan 2013 11:12 a.m. PST

"The US cannot likely not bring its entire force to bear on any one nation, like it did in the first Iraq war."-porfiro

But we did and I don't believe the USA has to bring the entire military to every conflict to achieve victory.

"Iranian troops would be a much more formidable opponent than the Iraqis were"--Porfiro

Can you prove that or is that just your opinion.

"This was the case in the Iran/Iraq War, after the first invasion by Iraq was defeated -- it was the Iranians on the attack and the Iraqis sitting in trenches and relying on firepower."- Porfiro

Both sides were incompetent and Iranian human wave attacks failed year after year. It wasn't until the Iraqis trained and developed some decent combined arms Republican Guard units did they break the dead lock and bring Iran to the peace table after handing Iran a series of defeats.

"Iran also has a much larger population"- Porfiro

Larger populations do not guarantee success on the battlefield.

"The Chinese did not overrun the NATO troops in their initial large intervention because they were in yellow hordes, as is often claimed"- Porfiro

The USA thought the war was over and were caught off guard. Once the USA regained its footing the Chinese were held. You will probably say not defeated and you would be right but that was then and I am talking about the present.

"The Indians also underestimated the Chinese, who have beat them in modern war as well."-Pofiro

Neither are the USA in the current modern context I am talking about.

"Need I go on?"-Porfiro

If you want to make a valid point!

"PS: you might want to rethink your belief that stating the invincibility of the USA is not self-congratulatory. As history has amply proven, there is no such thing as an "invincible military."

You might want to study history a little better your points were VERY weak… I never said there was an "invincible military" so I am not sure who you are quoting. Once again there was nothing self congratulatory in my posts so I am not sure what you are talking about…

Arrigo04 Jan 2013 11:13 a.m. PST

Read Andy Salmon books, also Millet, or talk with some veterans of the Gloster or the RM of 41 Commando (AKA TF Drysdale). Infiltration does not overrun anything, end of the line. I think you are not really making your point clear, probably because you are not really talking of overruns of individual positions but of the collapse of units like the 2nd Infantry. In that case infiltration was indeed the key. but the first series of attack against the spread out ROKA units in the center and the 1st Cavalry there were several massed infantry attacks. Certainly the attacks against Hagaru-ri were massed infantry also because as in later action if the UN forces did not budge and formed hedgehogs infiltration was quite silly. And do not understimated firepower also in mobile operations, as someone pointed out to me 'at the end of a long manoeuvrist approach I can see a quite attritional sharp end'.

We are making a bit of confusion between overrun (taking by speed/force a postion on the fly) and the progressive retreat of the 8th Army in face of PLA pressure and infiltration. I think it is more a matter of wording and I am quite persuaded you are talking of Kunu-Ri rather than Chosin. Anyway why we have ended talking of Korea here? While Korea is one of my fave and I cannot be accused to have forgotten it this thread is about those shiny new current us army miniatures… or maybe is just a subliminal approach to remember mr Khurasan to:

1) add something to his Korea line…
2) do some current ROKA/KPA in the future… (hey the latest tanks from the norks are good as are the ROKA ones).

Arrigo

Arrigo04 Jan 2013 11:17 a.m. PST

@Khurasan

as I said in the other forum… thanks god I got paid… Battle fro transmash, russian invasion I come…

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 11:27 a.m. PST

Love the idea of the greys and a "Battle LA" type game…

Indeed! And since a tabletop game would be without terrible dialog, the game would be ten times better than the movie.

(I may watch the movie again, just in another language. It would probably be better if I couldn't understand what they were saying.)

Personal logo MrHarold Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 11:38 a.m. PST

(I may watch the movie again, just in another language. It would probably be better if I couldn't understand what they were saying.)

Haha! It wasn't THAT bad… alright, maybe it was, but I liked the movie!

(I make fun of others) Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 11:41 a.m. PST

Dragon Gunner, your demand for proof is pretty selective -- go ahead and provide proof that your military is the invincible machine you are claiming -- after all, that's the reason this conversation started. In other words, practice what you are preaching.

Dragon Gunner04 Jan 2013 11:49 a.m. PST

@Porfiro

Care to respond to any of the other points I made?

I never said we were invincible who are you quoting?

Please make a valid point or actually quote something I said and debate it. I am not the one preaching…

John Treadaway04 Jan 2013 12:31 p.m. PST

196 and counting…

Anyway… the tanks and figures look nice especially the figures.

Seperate bipods and night vision stuff in 15mm? Gosh: that's fiddly stuff (he says while cleaning up some recent Rebel Minis purchases): I suspect I'd be covered in super glue by the time I'd tried to stick them on!

I'm all fingers and thumbs.

Very nice paint job too, BTW

John T

(I make fun of others) Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 12:37 p.m. PST

I never said we were invincible who are you quoting?

You -- please provide proof for the statements you originally made. Why not DG? It's what you are asking from me, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Go right back to the start of all this, your assertion that the US Army is facing no viable contentional threat, and prove it.

Then I'll provide proof of my points. Thank you.

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 12:49 p.m. PST

"196 and counting"

lol..

Arrigo04 Jan 2013 12:55 p.m. PST

Having seen pictures of the unpainted tank in the Khurasan blog I have to say that I am not too impressed by the painted version (ok I confess, I often do not like Troop of Shewe pictures, but having seen some of his tanks at a table at Salute I will also say that it is a problem of pictures more than painting :) ), but the model is indeed excellent and once I sorts my buying plan for 2013 I will probably have some (probably 4… got one platoon for FoF and two platoons for Battlefront and CWC, make sense for a balanced armor-infantry company team or a tank heavy one) plus an infantry force.

Dragon Gunner04 Jan 2013 12:59 p.m. PST

@Porfiro

Thats better there is a world of difference between "invincible military" and no viable conventional military threat.

Most of the USA's potential opponents are currently operating equipment that is 1-3 generations behind what the USA and its allies are fielding. When the USA and its allies take to the battlefield they butcher inferior equipped forces with minimal loss.

The only point I asked you to prove was your statement that the Iranians would be a more formidable opponent. The rest of your points were not relevant…

brass1 Supporting Member of TMP04 Jan 2013 1:04 p.m. PST

The miniatures are, as always, gorgeous and have been released, as always, just when I've sworn not to get involved in another period. I don't know how you do it.

LT

Shark Six Three Zero Inactive Member04 Jan 2013 1:19 p.m. PST

These are great. I may go with 15s in the near future. You guys are launching some great lines lately!

Lion in the Stars04 Jan 2013 1:28 p.m. PST

Ooooooooooh! Very nice, K!

Any chance that we could get a sprue of near-future active defenses added to the queue? You know, just the thing to update the M1A2 to an A3 or A4 model?

Sparker04 Jan 2013 1:52 p.m. PST

My grandma would have annihilated Irak's military after a decade of siege and embargo which killed 3,300,300 people (among them 750,000 children).

Nice to see double standards alive and well much liberal hand wringing over the US's decison to cease supporting a murderous regime after its psychotic dictator started threating its allies….but I am amazed how even in the most woolly of minds this cessation of support and refusal to trade equates to killing people….Does a country's government have no responsibility to feed its people, or is Foggy Bottom responsible for the health and well being of absolutely everyone living under dysfunctional regimes?

Perhaps its wrong to not value a country's citizens more highly than its own government does, but not in my book….

Are we going to attribute any of these deaths to Saddam and his thugs by the way?

Lovely, lovely Abrams by the way….

Pages: 1 2 3