"BattleFront's Redone 15mm Vehicles" Topic

Some of you may have been wondering about BF's redone WW2 vehicles: "what's changed?"

The answer is alot.

This quick review may be more helpful to those with BF 1st generation material than those who just got into the market & are already enjoying the newer stuff. In other words, some first generation owners may have avoided BF in the past because of some negative first impressions gained from some of the older kits. That can now end.

The chief complaint against the BF vehicles has been that the metal parts have been of poorer design quality than that of the resin parts. BF has fully addressed that issue, and it is a thing of the past. Not only have they improved their metal fittings, but their metal parts now enjoy a quality second to none.

When it comes to judging 15mm vehicles, I am not a caliper kind of guy. I look at it, and I either get that yummy feeling, or I don't. I leave room for artistic license.

From the redone list, I have the Tiger1, Tiger2, Panzer III & IV's, Stug III, Panther, 250 & 251 halftracks. All have little to no flash, are clean, crisp, well designed & go together quickly & flawlessly. You will notice the improvements to the guns & the tracks. The guns are larger, and the tracks are higher. Bravo.

Some specifics: The King Tiger's already excellent resin chassis now enjoy's tracks and a gun befitting of a King. The gun is massive, and is beautifully sculpted. Fine detail is present. It is funny that the gun is so heavy, it actually tips the turret forward (easily fixed with a small piece of thin wire glued to the front of the turret cavity). Very very YUMMY.

Tiger 1: the same applies. Fantastic gun & tracks. A little correctable turret tilt due to the gun. Very very YUMMY.

Panzer IV: the early BF Pz IV really needed a facelift, and what we got instead was the Swedish bikini swimsuit team. The new Pz IV's are awesome. Tracks, gun, resin chassis & turrets, all redone in this series. They simply cannot be improved on. Very Very Very YUMMY. Best that will ever be in 15mm.

Halftracks & Stug G: excellent as well. The 251's are already in a tight market, as all the lines have great halftracks. Of special note are the new tracks which really give a needed lift to the vehicles. The originals were a bit on the low side, which made the vehicles look a bit awkward. All, Very Very YUMMY.

Panther D: It's BIG. Actually, slightly higher than the Peter Pig. New gun (nicely finished, tapered, clean look), tracks. Very nice indeed. Very very Yummy.

All of the above are tops in their field. The changes in the Panzer IV's were simply jaw dropping. I simply cannot ask for more from the above kits.

Panzer III: It's definitely a big improvement over the original, but I still get the real yummy feeling from Quality Casting. Yes, it does have improved metal work. The tracks were made the correct height; however, the original resin chassis & turret was already a bit on the high side. Adding in the new tracks gives a slight top heavy look to the model, but it's all subjective. I guess I prefer the more squat look of the QC or Old Glory, but that's just me. Yes, it is worth buying; yes, it mixes well with the others. I just don't get the same yummy feeling with this one.

In summary, BF has achieved excellence in their new designs. For most, I do not believe they can be ( or need be) improved on. I'm happy. Well done.

The above just proves that you should never write a review on an empty stomach...

I've been quite impressed by the resculpts myself, and I just had dinner.

I'm curious, what do people think of the Flames of War rules? Hasn't been much (well, any) chat about them on any of the boards I frequent, which I found rather surprising. If nothing else I would have expected some commentary on the book's visual resemblence to the Warhammer 40K rules...

Rich

I've seen FOW (don't own it though) and it really did seem like 40k with 15mm WW2....

"Panther D: It's BIG. Actually, slightly higher than the Peter Pig."

?! No comment :-)

Flames of War rules, I like them very much and enjoy playing them. It allows you to push a good amount of figures / vehicles without being slowed down. Very easy rules to learn. I've never played WH so I can't compare them.

We have made a couple of changes to the rules (as many people do to any rules set). You can finish a re-inforced company level game in 3 or 4 hours.

I've started to make a set of Vietnam era rules based upon the Flames of War rule system.

As for the size of the Panther D, I haven't seen the new casting, but I've stood next to several real Panthers. Wow, they are big. A Winabago of Death.

I find the FoW book to be very useful for a couple of things. First, the TOEs are quite good and pretty darned accurate. I also like the method of force construction -- base the force on a standard combat company and then add supporting elements. The rules that govern that process are simple and elegant and produce eminently playable forces.

As to the rules themselves, I'm just not fond of them. To echo someone else's comment: they seem like 40K in WWII. The D6 mechanics limit the range of outcomes. I don't particularly care for the roll-to-hit, roll-to-save, roll-to-kill mechanic -- we've found it too time consuming and so have switched to a single roll for everything. Finally, I really don't like the I-go you-go mechanic where one side moves everything and then the other side goes.

Nevertheless, the book is definitely worthwhile for the mid-war TOEs and force structures. The early and late war force structures are available as PDFs on the Battlefront website.

GeoffQRF, the Panther is really nice. Yes, it's big, but so is the whole BF range. So, in that context, they are all in harmony with each other. I didn't even mention the Russian stuff, which was either redone in the past or is new stuff. Their KV's, JS's, BT's, T-26,28,35,60,70, BA's, arty, are tops in their respective classes. It just dosen't get any better than that.

Sorry DrBig, it's reference to a very old conversation on the egroup regarding size and the Panther height in particular as there appeared to be a discrepancy in the reading of the measurements to either the top of the turret or top of cupola.

"As a rule I will make the height measurement "generous" to allow for the fact that infantry figures on bases are taller than they should be when next to vehicles"
Evan Allen, Battlefront

It's not supposed to be big, it's supposed to be 1:100 or 30mm to the top of the cupola (or about 26-27mm in true 15mm).

PP are generally known for making their vehicles slightly "chunky" and oversize because "tanks feel big", which makes for a good wargames model (even if the gun barrel is overscale). Personally I'd worry about something that was even bigger.

Don't get me wrong, I've had this conversation before. I'm not knocking Battlefront, who are one of many manufacturers out there producing fine vehicles. Their KV is much better after the slightly embarrasing recall and rebuild (though I believe still not correct as the original turret shape was much better)

But as someone who has been told by a US customer that their Panzer IIIs and IVs are the best on the market... it just goes to show that it all comes down to opinion. :-)

Hi Geoff, I remember fondly that conversation on the Panther. For those not in the know, it involved another competitors Panther that was rather small (not one of Geoff's!). The BF Panther was being slammed by the chap as being over the top in comparison!

Geoff, do you know if they whom shall remain nameless, replaced that model?

Odd that this topic has come up, I have just been shown the new Hornisse/Nashorn, the gun is Huge!! It'll be a wee while before it comes out, but talk about impressive!

Most discussion on Flames of War seems to happen on the FlamesofWar yahoo group link

The group is over 300 strong & quite lively at times.

To answer a couple of questions above, we have deliberately made the presentation up-market. It didn't cost a lot & after the effort that went into it we felt it was deserved! Unfortunately GW got there first regards quality presentation, otherwise the comparison might be the other way round…

The rules aren't a GW clone, the author wrote Warhammer Panzer Battles (subsequently bought by GW) and wanted to do something differant. Having said that, it is a fast, easy to learn game with loads of depth.

Flames of War won't appeal to everyone and there are a lot of good quality rules about catering to differant demands. FoW caters for re-inforced company level actions, using a one for one figure representation and in 15mm scale. Troops are based into (loosely) teams, two per Infantry section. Your basic building block for formations is the platoon.

It is points based and objective driven (ie: to win you either have to capture objectives or force a failed company moral test on your opponent through casualties.)

Game play is roughly 1 1/2 hours to 3 hours. Tank vs tank games are faster than Infantry defence style games (my preferred game).

Cheers!
Matt@battlefront.co.nz

GeoffQRF...Geoff QRF...now I get it! Sorry, it didn't click with me before! Hey, I actually haven't seen your stuff in the US. Do you export?

About the comparisons, I agree. People should just see what they like for themselves.

About the KV turret...well, I dont' have the 1st generation before, but I think it was a different model. Now, I'm no Zaloga, but the new one strikes me as what he calls the KV1E. The old one was the 1941 model, iirc.

Also, it appears that Peter Pig has redone their Pz III's. Anyone see them in the US yet? I hear Brookhurst is out of them.

I have played both Warhammer PB and FOW, whatever Phil Yate's intentions were FOW is HEAVILY based on 3rd edition 40k - it is better in some significant ways but scratch the surface of virtually every mechanic and assuption and you get 40k. This is not (necessarily) a criticism, if you like 40k then you will like FOW, if not...

I don't think 40k 3 is a particularly good set of rules and many of the things I dislike about it are in FOW this is a shame - for me at least - I had high hopes and really wanted FOW to be really good and original but it is just not the game for me.

As for the models - I love Battlefront's toys and the new platoon backs are ideal battalion packs for Rapid Fire - we are even using the bases provided to save moving around individually based figures - two stands to a company - it works really well.

FOW only takes 3 hours to play a game but 2 of those are spent rolling d6s to hit, to save and to wound (completely different from to hit, to wound, to save - oh and when shooting a tank you don't roll d6, add the weapon strength and try to get over the armour value you roll d6 add the armour value and try to get over the weapon strenght)

That said there are some nifty ideas in the game to work around the inherent flaws in the core mechanics and I get the feeling that you could probably play 40k with FOW rules and get a better 40k - the conversion took all of three minutes to work out (as I said the numbers are pretty much the same).

Matt is right the rules are not everybody's cup of tea but that is ok - what would we do if we found a perfect wargame and never needed to spend money on rules again? (Perish the thought!) One thing I would not criticise is Battlefront's miniatures, they are stunning.

*grin*

If you are using & enjoying Battlefront figures, I personally don't care what system you play! So long as you enjoy your hobby & occasionally get to kick butt on the tabletop!

Cheers! Matt

Regarding the BF minatures, I have a question regarding size: I have several BF models, including (probaly older) Panzer IV's and III's. I recently picked up a BF Tiger 1, and was really surprised to see how much larger than the III's and IV's it is.... I mean, I know size matters, but holy cow! Is this difference in size of the models reflective of the acutual size difference in real life?

Thanks!
Shawn

Dr Big1

I have fired over an email to martin to see which item was resculpted.......???....

( I have in stock )
8-11 PZ-III F...........11 in stock
8-46 PZ-III E............6 in stock
8-362 PZ-III L..................25 in stock

contact me direct if you have any questions......
714-636-3580
www.brookhursthobbies.com

thank you

larry huber
BROOKHURST HOBBIES
p.s its early in morning...did I miss one?

Re: FoW rules set

As a long time WHFB gamer with little 40k experience I found the FoW rules to be very accesible, fresh and exciting. I do appreciate the pov of some of the older WW2 gamers, but FoW was the first WW2 rules set to get me playing, and I have not looked back. I'm not trying to start a debate over what others have said, just wanted to throw into the ring the point that FoW has, at least in Oz, probably doubled the amount of people playing WW2 games and reduced the amount of GW gamers by 5% - not much, but a start. This is very much due to BF producing an great rules set somewhat familiar in format to us GW veterans.

More interestingly I've got three complete non gaming mates who used to look at my WHFB gaming with some scepticism as regards its merits, but the moment they saw me playing a WW2 game in little over five weeks all of them had painted armies ready to game. I've never seen a GW game get that sort of response from adults, and I think that's to BFs credit.

for GreenMountainBoy the tanks you mentioned are all made from much the same materials and a Tiger I weighs 57 tons,The PZ IVh weighs 25 tons and the PZ IIIm weighs 22.7 tons. So do you still really think there shouldn't be much size difference!?

Evan

Hi Matt, Not as far as I know. Perhaps market pressure will force some changes. Keep up the good work. :-)

DrBig... yep, we sure do. I assume you are in the US, in which case contact Wargames Inc, Great Hall Games or LittleWars (new shop) who are all stocking in QRF. Look us up on TMP manufacturer listing and the contacts are all there.

GreenMountainBoy
Pz IIIE: L:5.38m, w:2.91m, h:2.44m
Pz IVD: L:5.92m, w:2.84m, h:2.68m
Pz VIE (Tiger): L:8.45m, w:3.70m, h:2.93m
Does that answer the question?

Thanks guys,

I figured it was accurate, but the difference just really surprised me when looking at them side by side. I've never had the opportunity to see either 'in person' and really haven't seem photos giving a good side by side comparison.

Cheers Matt!

It is this good attitude on your behalf that will insure the popularity of Battlefront miniatures and is clearly different from the "evil empire" - just tell them that you are buying warhammer figures for your Hordes of the Things army - they just about pop.

Jem

Hi Larry, no I don't think you missed any. I am as confused as you are. According to the Peter Pig web page, they have renamed the 8-11 kit as a new Panzer IIIL. It used to be the IIIF, as you have noted. It seems that PP is correct, as they do seem to have a new panzer without stowage on the top of their home page. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the 362's. Please try your best to get the others too. Thanks.

OK GANG

The new Pig 8-11 Pz III L is now in stock. We got them in with restock order. Our web page has been updated. And they are going fast. " DrBig " if you need any please let me know. I have 4 remaining and placed another order for more with Julie this morning. And the 362s are in stock.

thank you

larry huber
Brookhurst Hobbies

Back to Battlefront...

Does anyone else think they need to seriously re-do their T34? They are currently going through the third re-do of their Shermans, for which they offer about 20 variants. The T34s (total of 4 variants) all use exactly the same hull, which was first sculpted in 1997 (I think).

OK, so they changed the shape of the hatch from round to square for the earlier variants, but everything else is the same. They did nothing about the bow MG mounting - earlier versions lacked the round shield around the barrel that the model has.

And the bow mg is something of a horror in itself, being cast-on in resin and hence being way too thick and pointy. I think this is the only model in the whole line where the bow mg is cast in resin as part of the hull. The proportions on the hull itself are slightly off, making it too long (or not wide enough). The tracks pieces, while a vast improvement over the originals, still have a way to go to being shaped correctly. And the turret of the model 1943 is a bit on the short side - their model has it the same height as the model 1942, but in fact it was about 6 inches taller, to get back some of the room lost when they eliminated the overhang at the back where Germans liked to place T-mines.

I know most people don't care about these things, particularly when it comes to Soviet vehicles. It just seems to me that if they are going to all the trouble to get Shermans and all the panzers right, they might take some time with (arguably) the most important tank of the war.

Of course, I kind of hope they don't listen to me, lest I find myself having to replace the 30 or so I already own ;).

(rant mode off)

Mserafin, you read my mind. I was just thinking about the T-34's. You should know that they did redo the tracks (made them higher). So, the deck level in now consistent with PP, OG, etc. Well, it's a start; the chassis is still a bit on narrow side, but the new deck height helps me get past that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't their StugIIID model wrong? I think that's an F8 chassis they are borrowing for the D model; it has a fan on top, and extra armor on the upper front chassis. This is also an important model, but no line seems to have a corret StuGIII D/E.

I use the Old Glory IIIF with a converted short barrel gun. It still has the fan on top, but not the additional armor plating.

Just to follow up on the latest posts;

On the Stug front, I have had a look at it, we do have separate chassis. The obvious changes on the models are that the F has the air vent on the top and the sides of the fighting compartment on the F appear vertical rather than angled (both have what appear to be stowage boxes on the sides of the fighting compartment.)

Its possible that it may be a mis-pack, I have swapped emails with DrBig1 & offered replacements. Anyone else with this problem (or indeed any others) please drop us an email direct & we'll sort it out.

The T-34's we are going to look at this week, thanks for raising it.

Cheers!
Matt@battlefront.co.nz

Matt,

Thanks for taking the time to listening to the grumblings of us grognards. I really appreciate the chance to have some useful input.

By the way, how are the Pumas coming?

Mark

Matt, you are 100% right about the Stug. Just got mine today. Thanks a bunch.

I just picked up a new Panzer IV H today, and compared it to the older (at least a year ago) version. It seems to have grown a few mm in height, and its noticably larger than the 6 I have already. It looks as though all of the German Panzers have grown a little in height with the remastering, which makes having both versions a little strange.

I've also picked up a couple of the remastered Shermans (M4A3 75mm and 76mm) too to start on a US tank company. Having a look though, Im unsure if these have been increased in height as the German tanks, as they looked right compared to the older Panzer IV H (going by the scale drawings in the Signal in action series), being slightly taller, but the new Panzer IV H is approx 1mm taller than the 75mm Sherman, and approx 1mm shorter than the 76mm Sherman.