Combat vehicle crew Yes or No?

[paul]

Yes to them, artillery crew and engineers.

[pmskaar]

For Mark and others, I just want to clarify a couple of things from my previous post.

First, I am aware that GHQ make a number of individual vehicle crew members for some of their vehicles. I have some of these and have use them on a few of my vehicles and will probably use others. In the GHQ catalog R14 was done by me a number of years ago. For that one, I sliced off the head from one of the seated Russian figures that come with R38.
I also did the same basic thing with G520, the Sdkfz 221 armored car.

I sill do think that it would be nice for GHQ to at least offer their artillery crews without bases as well as with. That way, the customer does not have to slice off the bases to put these guys on board vehicles. It will be easier that way.

The second thing I would like to clarify is what I said about AT crews. I do use the block style guys for my AT guns and have made separate purchases to get the ones I need. I actually use the American crews for my summer Russian crews rather than the actual Russian AT crews which have fur hats and coats for winter. The American also do duty as Italian crews if anyone is paying attention.
If GHQ does decide to do new AT gun crews as separate figures, I would be fine with that. Just make sure the French are included in the mix.
If GHQ doesn't elect to do new crew figures for all the nationalities then at least do the French to complete their AT guns.

Those are my thoughts for now. Have a great day!

Pete

[whoa Mohamed]

I want to be sure everyone understands when I started this thread i meant for all periods and armies . I totally agree there is also a need for Artillery and gun crews for all periods as well. Some of you are definitely talented enough to drill out and place figures in vehicles many of us are not , I don't think its too much to ask for if GHQ helps by doing vehicles with hatches open so we don't have to risk damageing a model beyond repair by those of us with less talent,

[DAVIDNOLA62]

I very definitely vote "yes" to crew figures

[Dog Smack]

I'm going to have to agree with everyone here on this one. I think crews would be awesome to be included and would definitely add "flavor" to the models.

Steve

[6mmwargaming]

Hell yes!!

[StVF101]

I vote yes as well. Especially if it leads to some Modern/Vietnam era and WWII troops riding on vehicles.

[Mk 1]

Been thinking about the artillery crews ...

It seems to be that all of the arty figures we now have wear helmets. This is actually rather a limitation on their applicability, as most nations of WW2 had fairly distinctive helmet styles. So we use figures with US helmets for Soviet, Italian, French or whatever, as Brit or German helmets are just too distinctive.

But every army issued alternate "fatigue-wear" head covering, and arty crews were probably substantially less likely than infantry to wear their helmets "to the office", since they were far less likely to come under fire.

Photographically there is ample evidence of arty crews wearing a fairly limited variety of soft headwear -- I would think that berets, side caps and visored caps would be about enough to give us gun crews for every major army of WW2. And there is a stronger overlap with vehicle crews, miscellaneous figures (medics, service techs, etc.) with these caps than with helmets.

Some examples:


Canadian arty crews in berets.


US arty crews with bare heads, one in cap with visor.


US heavy arty crew, mostly in side-caps, helped by soldiers in helmets.


Soviet divisional (or AT brigade?) gun crews in side-caps.


Soviet "Katyusha" (Guards Mortar) crew in side-caps.


German "acht-acht" crew, several in side-caps.


Italian arty crew, several in visor caps.


Finnish coastal artillery crew, mostly in visored caps.


Admittedly we already have several arty crew packs with helmets. But rather than do even more sets with helmets, maybe if we could get one or two sets with side-caps, visored caps and/or berets, we'd be in better shape for all the variety of minor combattants' artillery, as well as whatever non-rifleman formations we wanted to use them for.

Just some musings ...

[John Secker]

What on earth are those US crew doing? They seem to be pushing a house in front of their (very large) gun. Is it some sort of camouflage affair on rails? The back wall seems to be folding back as though it has been rolled from over the gun. Anyone got any idea?

[ferret701]

Pete,

I would buy all of these.

Pat
www.microarmormayhem.com

[Donald M. Scheef]

The US heavy artillery photo is of a coastal battery. The "house" is camouflage mounted on rollers. It is being pushed clear of the gun mount in preparation for firing (obviously a drill or staged event, not actual combat).

Don S.

[Cav Dog]

I've been thinking about this and it is a great idea. After trying to paint some vehicles with drivers incorporated into the casting I do ask that the crew be on separate sprues to facilitate painting. I'm sure many of the more skilled modelers on here can handle painting attached crews but I struggle mightily!

[TAMMY]

The picture has been tken in Caloifornia in July 1943 but I don't understand why the "house" has to be pushed in front of the gun. It would have been better to push it in the opposite direction so to easily free the field of fire of the gun.

[TAMMY]

Matrk 1

the pic of Italian ay is from WWI. In WWI the visored cap eas used in Northern Africand e by the RSI.

[Nazgul]

This is on the same site. Looks like the same gun with the picture taken from the inside of the house (notice the lattice work at the top of the picture. I couldn't find any information about the location, but I'm thinking the beach is on the left of the picture and they would pivot the gun to fire ('cause that's what I would do ).

If it was me, and the house was in the way, a round or two would eliminate the vision problem in no time .

http://historylink101.com/ww2_color/Wor ... T1354.html