"Warlord: plastic 28mm M18 Hellcat platoon" Topic
13 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 WWII Discussion Message Board Back to the Weird WWII Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land Science Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Seamus | 05 Nov 2016 9:25 a.m. PST |
Just saw this, thought some here might like to know. link |
Seamus | 05 Nov 2016 9:58 a.m. PST |
Corollary: Plastic M3 Stuart pre-order: link |
Mark 1 | 05 Nov 2016 12:05 p.m. PST |
Does anyone else find it objectionable that Warlord calls this a platoon? It isn't. A platoon of M18s had a different number of M18s, and it also needs to have a command vehicle (an M20), or it can't operate as a platoon. It should also have a platoon sergeant's vehicle (a second M20), but I'm not suggesting it needs to have everything exactly as a platoon would have -- but I mean how would you wargame with a platoon that doesn't have a commander??? If you're just going to call a random number of vehicles a platoon, you could just as easily call it a company, or a battalion, or a division -- OK maybe that's a good idea: 3 M18s makes a tank destroyer division! At least in that case it is obviously a made-up reference (there were no tank destroyer divisions), so you can hardly be accused of deliberately lying to your customers. Or call it a stonk, or a cluster, or a babble of M18s. Platoon? Hmmmph. [/soapbox] -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Winston Smith | 05 Nov 2016 12:37 p.m. PST |
|
christot | 05 Nov 2016 12:49 p.m. PST |
I join you on that soap box…but…if it helps them sell stuff…it gets people playing..it gets people interested…they make nice models…the world is not a perfect place….rule sets that ignore most structures and say a platoon of infantry, an anti-tank gun, 2 tanks, and a mortar are are realistic formation…gets my goat way more |
PzGeneral | 05 Nov 2016 2:26 p.m. PST |
How is this any different than in Napoleonic gaming when 24 or so models are called a Battalion? Seems the same to me…..and no one complains. |
nazrat | 07 Nov 2016 9:42 a.m. PST |
But this IS a platoon. Of tanks. A Platoon Command box would have the other stuff (if it was ever marketed that way). So no, I do not find this "objectionable" in any way. I have more important things in my life to get all het up about. 8)= |
Mark 1 | 08 Nov 2016 12:39 a.m. PST |
But this IS a platoon. Of tanks. No. There are no tanks in a tank destroyer platoon. But that's OK, because they don't put any tanks in this platoon box. Only tank destroyers. But this is not a platoon of tank destroyers. Because tank destroyers did not operate in platoons of 3 vehicles. A Platoon Command box would have the other stuff … So no, I do not find this "objectionable" in any way." So how do you game with a platoon where there is no platoon commander? When they sell you a squad of infantry, do you need to buy the sergeant separately? When you buy a platoon of infantry, do you then expect to buy the lieutenant who commands the platoon separately? In a tank platoon, the platoon commander rode in a tank. But contrary to what has been suggested, this is not a tank platoon. It is a tank destroyer platoon. In a tank destroyer platoon the commander did not ride in a tank destroyer. So even if you had a platoon's worth of tank destroyers (which you do not), you would still have no one to command them. So how does that work, game wise? Do they sit on the side of the road for the whole game waiting for orders that never come? I mean, I too have more important things to do in my life. More important than wargaming. But I still like wargaming. However, it seems like this is like selling a car without wheels. When you buy a model car, don't you expect it to come with the wheels? How can you run a platoon that has no commander in a wargame? -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
BeneathALeadMountain | 08 Nov 2016 10:44 a.m. PST |
There is a pack that has a recon section (apologies if this is the wrong terminology) with two M18s and an M20. Check their website, it was in the email they sent out. I totally understand your point but believe it's probably better not to worry and just organise my own forces historically instead :) . That and play in 15mm so it doesn't become a simulation of the M25 with tanks. |
Steve Wilcox | 08 Nov 2016 11:38 a.m. PST |
There is a pack that has a recon section (apologies if this is the wrong terminology) with two M18s and an M20. That's also in the original link, underneath the 'platoon.' It's one of the two TD sections in a platoon, with half of the M20s from the platoon's HQ and Security Section, which seems reasonable to me: TO&E 18-27, 15 March 1944: PDF link |
Starfury Rider | 08 Nov 2016 12:02 p.m. PST |
Also, as a compromise, the original Jan43 T/O includes a note which says that if the Pl Cmdr and Sgt each ride in a TD, two cannoneers will ride with the Security Sec. So perhaps you can argue that if you only want the one box the Lt is in one TD and the missing M18 is in the 'shop'. I imagine there's a training manual online, might cover in there as to whether the Lt was expected to stay with the M20 or displace a crewman from one of the TDs as the situation required. Gary |
Mark 1 | 08 Nov 2016 12:49 p.m. PST |
There is a pack that has a recon section (apologies if this is the wrong terminology) with two M18s and an M20. This is a contributing factor to my original grumbling. Their "M18 Section", as Steve points out, is a good representation of half of an M18 platoon. If you use two M18 Sections you get the right set of stuff to game an M18 platoon. Yeah, it may not have all the little bits and bites of the platoon, but it gives you the stuff you need to game your M18s the way US Tank Destroyer platoons actually fought. Then they put a boxed set out which has nothing to do with the way TDs were organized, and call it a platoon. It ain't. And you can't game with it as a platoon. Not, at least, if you want to game with it as if it was a US Tank Destroyer Platoon. Now if you want to game it as a Chumchum of Muckamuckapattings, then it works just fine. But they called it a US Tank Destroyer Platoon. Those words are not made-up words, they have actual meaning. This boxed set does not meet the definition of those words. Also … the original Jan43 T/O includes a note which says that if the Pl Cmdr and Sgt each ride in a TD, two cannoneers will ride with the Security Sec. Yes, they could ride in the TDs. And in fact, when given missions where they were not acting in the tank destroyer role, they might well have rolled that way. I'd be interested in any accounts that describe this behavior. I often learn from what other folks here come up with. But if you want a game where your M18s actually act like a platoon of tank destroyers, you're going to have a very hard time understanding why the US made such vehicles, and why/how they were so successful at the tactical level, because you can't use this boxed M18 Platoon the way they were trained and the way they fought. US TDs were a really bad idea if you were just going to drive up in front of German tanks and trade blows with them. Yet they were successful in destroying enemy tanks for low losses, even against the much vaunted Tiger tanks. The stats on this are clear. Interestingly they don't actually vary much between the M10, the M18, or even the M36. So the speed, and the gun, were not the determining factors. Rather, it was their training and their combat tactics. If you don't have mechanisms for gaming with them that reflect the superior situational awareness that the TDs had in the armor v. armor fight, if you can't use them in ways that gives them the advantage of superior positioning and first shots, then they are just medium tank sized vehicles with slightly better guns but much weaker armor. Integrating recon at the battalion, company and even platoon level (including platoon command in scout cars) was part of their formula for success, and having higher levels of training for their crews in how to fight armor-vs-armor (including their "cannoneers") was part of their formula for success, as much as having everything open-topped or being faster than equivalent tanks was part of their formula for success. If the rules reduce the situational awareness and shooting effectiveness of the TDs when the platoon leaders ride in the TDs, then I can see going with the platoon CO in a TD as a "what-if". I don't know the Bolt Action rules, but I kind of doubt they do. Yeah, I know I'm ranting. Pardon me, but this issue kind of gets under my skin. The whole thing just smacks to me of a company who's marketing decisions are disrespectful of their customers. They know what an M18 Tank Destroyer platoon should have. This is evidenced by their M18 Tank Destroyer section boxed set. But they made a decision -- Oh we can just put any old thing we want in the box and call it what we want. The word "Platoon" has no meaning to our customers. They're only historical gamers, after all. Mumble grumble foo. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Griefbringer | 09 Nov 2016 5:41 a.m. PST |
Warlord tends to have a habit of calling their 3 vehicle boxed (as separate from their individual vehicle kits) sets as "Platoon" sets, regardless of what the actual historical organisation for the vehicle in question. If you think this is bad, you should check how they use the organisational term "Army" in a rather non-historical fashion with their WWII products… |
nazrat | 10 Nov 2016 8:14 a.m. PST |
Well, if we are going to be completely pedantic, those vehicles are indeed tanks. Definition of tank is: a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track. Sounds like those M18s to me. And I am well aware that many have other ideas of what constitutes a "tank". I have looked at six different dictionary sites and the definition is pretty much the same on every one. But rant on if it pleases you. You are indeed quite knowledgable about these things and I honestly respect that. 8)= |
|