GHQ Models Forums

Hi

I don't often log into the forum so I may have missed some announcements, but are there any updates on the Wehrmacht 47 range of figures along with the rules update for them.? Also any news on the update the the Micronaughts Supplement to include French, Russian ships etc.?

Thanks

I haven't seen anything specific yet, but the November – December 2008 issue of TacNews describes the background for the “Wehrmacht ‘47â€￾ series of Microarmor. One section outlines the new-technology weapons that might be available to the Germans had the war lasted an additional two years. The three major sections are:
The “Eâ€￾ series: E-10, E-25, E-50, E-75, and E-100. Since E-100 is already available, it seems likely that GHQ will produce other vehicles in this series.
The SdKfz.350/351: I have not been able to find references to these fully-tracked replacements for the SdKfz.250/251 half-tracks. I would appreciate any detailed information on these designs. Their inclusion indicates that GHQ intends to produce models of them.
Waffenträger: These form the basis for a large variety of self-propelled weapons. If GHQ produces them, I would hope that they include models for the weapons in both mounted and dismounted form.
While any of these would be interesting for hypothetical gaming, producing only the German vehicles will not provide a well-balanced game situation. The allies also need advanced vehicles.

Don S.

I assume that they're giving the SdKfz.350/351 designation to the Katzchen.
http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Katzchen.htm

Steve

I just received my latest order (Thanks GHQ!) and read through the TAC NEWS article about the '47 concept. Okay, I can see where you're coming from. From a gaming perspective I don't do WWII land and the concept behind the '47 range doesn't fit in 'our world' as early cold war so it has no appeal for me. From a resource allocation perspective I wish GHQ were devoting those development hours and dollars toward expanding existing lines but what can you do. Good luck with the project and maybe we'll see some modern naval minis or even cold war naval minis in the next decade.

Paul

I just read that TACNEWS & would be embarrassed to have my name attached to it.

The world is afraid of a resurgent Germany?

Says WHO? (GHQ can answer that).

I welcome this new line to the GHQ armored formations and feel that the products will be popular and well worth the investment. Personally, I hope there are some large surprises in this batch as the E series and the APC's are not enough to turn the tide against Allied M28, JSIII and other Allied postwar armor.

Schwerepunkt wrote:I welcome this new line to the GHQ armored formations and feel that the products will be popular and well worth the investment. Personally, I hope there are some large surprises in this batch as the E series and the APC's are not enough to turn the tide against Allied M28, JSIII and other Allied postwar armor.

Based on my read of the TAC NEWS article I don't think you can say what the "allies" would have in '47 except maybe the Soviets. The entering arguement is that America was 'kept out of the war in Europe'. Without that testing/proving ground US armor might have evolved for Pacific Island hopping style campaigns - who knows what that would mean.

The Wehrmacht '47 concept seems to ignore the Arsenal of Democracy Lend-Lease issue until 1947. It seems to imply that for unstated reasons the US did not supply the massive amounts of aid until the US had dealt with Japan. Given the historic ties to the UK and the known character of Nazi Germany that seems like a highly dubious assumption. Germany therefore could not afford to not act against the US, thus drawing them into the war in Europe openly. A more plausible scenario could be the early success of Germany in the Battle of Britain and then Operation Sea Lion. But that would likely eliminate Brit units from the Wehrmacht '47 game. IMO there could be no war in Europe without the US participating either openly or as an untouchable arms factory, not something that could be assumed away.

How far do you step back in history before you reach a point where the outcome of the war could have been different? Militarily I think there are many tipping points that, if the outcome had changed could have lead to an extended war into 1947. But I believe you would have to step back very far indeed to reach a point where the
Political underpinnings of WWII could be undone enough to envision a scenario such as the one outlined in the article.

Inbound wrote:I just read that TACNEWS & would be embarrassed to have my name attached to it.

I think I'm with Inbound on this one. This line is a flight of fancy which doesn't conceptually fit with any of the existing product lines because it supposes that one force (1947 Wehrmacht) could evolve along a line of thinking shaped by one experience (the real Wehrmacht 1939-45) without experiencing the same opposing forces (Allies 1939-45) because they are just wished away. All forces, both vehicles and organizations existed because they were born from battle. Without that struggle, without that action-reaction we might as well hypothesize about US Army '47 or any other army for that matter. My two cents.

Paul

I think its a big to-do over nothing. While so many play games that are based on historical events and game pieces, no matter what, all the games played with miniatures are truly 'what ifs' anyway.

"All forces, both vehicles and organizations existed because they were born from battle. Without that struggle, without that action-reaction we might as well hypothesize about US Army '47 or any other army for that matter."

I have to disagree with this POV. You are correct when looking at the Allied armies of the time, but Germany was looking forward into new tactics/strategies, and how to properly implement them. Certainly they can only result in "what-if" games, but then again, unless you play a "historical" game exactly historical you have a what-if.

All wargaming involves what if situations. That is why they are played. If this line is not to your liking, you may continue playing the era you have chosen. No one is pulling anyone's teeth and saying it must be played. If the market is cool to the idea of German large, massive weapons, then they will not continue.

What is not being considered in this "what if" is the logistics. Germany by 45 simply didn't have the capacity to produce these mosters. ONly a very very few since the Allies hel all of the Iron ore deposits and had over run the Oil fileds. No gas no Battle. No Iron no armor protection.

Besides the balance would have been maintained. THe US had a super heavy tank themselves. I saw it at the 2AD museum at FT Hood. Was armed with a 120mm gun and looked like a very early M48 on steroids. It never saw combat deployment and with the advent of Sabot rounds the smaller guns could do the job.

The only interesting extention of the war is in the air. The P80 vs ME 262? Plausable if the war had lasted 6 months longer. (The Brits had a jet fighter as well just can't think of the name of it.)

I'm just shaking my head when the 47 line is mentioned. I'll still work the historical part of WW2.

Panzerleader71,

Certainly Germany was an innovator but their organizations didn't remain static they evolved. And I don't think anyone can argue that the evolution wasn't based on hard fought combat not on pure theory. Or maybe I missed your point.

Paul

...that 1/285 armor be be based upon historical fact, ie. enough gas, enough steel, etc., etc. The entire point of this line does not involve the organization of the Panzertruppen or the steel or national resources, rather it is a what might have been had Germany been free to produce the ideas she was working on.
These are gaming pieces only and if one wants to incorporated them, that is fine and if not DO NOT BUY THEM. I for one plan to get every one of the line.

av8rmongo wrote:Panzerleader71,

Certainly Germany was an innovator but their organizations didn't remain static they evolved. And I don't think anyone can argue that the evolution wasn't based on hard fought combat not on pure theory. Or maybe I missed your point.

Paul

You missed my point, but I might have missed your original one. I took your original point to mean that the armies of the time did not change their tactics/strategies/organizations until the fighting actually started. If I read that corectly then I disagree on the basis that Germany already had started to make the changes to their organization much earlier then that. For example the Germans were the only Army to recognize the proper use of the tank, and manoever warfare. Everyone of the allied armies did not...until, as you say the fighting started. The French, and to lesser extent the English, were still in a WWI mentality (Maginot Liine anyone?) I've heard interviews with British Vets that said that everyone pretty much expected to jump back into their trenchs and start off where 1918 ended.

Panzerleader71,

My statement was more of a generalized view of things than a specific commentary on a specific army/nation. Let me rephrase. The armies/organizations/weapons that existed in '45 (or were planned for '46 or '47) were not the same ones that existed in '39. Obviously. If you suppose that there is a different sequence of events, such as "Japan First" then the selective pressures thats existed in path A (our reality) are fundamentally changed. With such a fundamental change in the selective pressures it is exceedingly unlikely that you arrive at the same endstate - which Idefine as having the same organizations/weapons as timeline A.

Why do I define it that way? The W '47 line cannot exist in a vacuum, they need opponents or who would buy/play it. And yet in the construct offered by GHQ we are asked to believe that the Germans are the only ones who were affected by the altered reality. They have to ask us to suspend disbelief because otherwise it invalidates the rest of their product line - asif the Sherman tank was always going to exist no matter what.

The problem with altered realities is it affects all sides. The farther back you "walk the dog" the greater the effect.

Paul