GHQ Models Forums

One particular stand out (for me at least) amongst the new releases - the LCS(M) ie. Landing Craft Support (Medium). In particular it is the Mark 3, which by 06Jun44 were operating in reasonably large numbers. Although mainly operated in the Juno & Gold sectors, at least 2 LCS(M) Mk3's were employed in the Omaha area - both supporting the Ranger landing at Pointe Du Hoc > No. 91 (sunk) & No. 102 (damaged)

I was slightly worried that GHQ would come up with the earlier LCS(M) MK 2, of which a grand total of just 9 were built. However we have the Mk3. Great!

cinctim wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 30, 2024 9:34 am

Batch 3 is up and all with pictures!

Couple of interesting pieces. The T-64BV is really useful for people doing the ongoing war in Ukraine.

I have to wonder sometimes about the logic behind GHQ's releases. Did anyone actually ask for a rare SP ATGM operated by only one nation that isn't up for export and is yet to see combat? Surely there were literally thousands of other vehicles that would have greater appeal and make more commercial sense?

Lackluster choice of vehicles. Wrong CUCV chosen for early release. With all the possibilities of more significant vehicles why are oddities so prominent?

I was hoping for a different CUCV configuration as well. I will probably still get a pack or two of them for range control.

I would have like the Chevy Blazer version of the CUCV. I think it would have done well to expand the range of models. There is already a pickup model (the toyota) that can be used as a universal stand in, but nothing that can stand in for the SUV's that are widely used.

I don't mind the NAMICA at all. Yes, it is a rare vehicle, but on the other hand, besides the tanks, there isn't anything distinctly Indian. If you want a modern Indian force with some signature Indian equipment it's essential. Besides, while the Arjun tank is also distinctly India, it is rare. More common to see T-72s or even the T90s- but neither of those are distinctly India. So you can put down a unit with Namica's on the table and say look, this is Indian, see, Namicas!

I agree on the choice of the CUCV - would've liked to have a mixed pack with 3 Blazers and 3 P/Us. Or 3/2 if it is too expensive to have six small models in a pack...

The CUCV I saw most on active duty in the 70s was the SUV version - hard top over bed. The pickups were rare. Divisional MP companies had them, so there were a lot of 'em running around. Pickups, not so much. Maybe others had a different experience.

IIRC the CO and XO had SUVs and the 1SG and each platoon had a pick up, but we were Air Cav so may not have been common with non aviation units. If they do offer the SUV variant, make certain they mold it without a back window!

Wait, how did I miss that the Arleigh Burke Flight III DDG is scheduled for Batch #4?

Forgive my ignorance, but is there much external difference between the different versions of the Arleigh Burke? When I glanced at the pictures of the Arleigh Burke and the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA they look the same to me. But I'm not a naval guy so I don't know what all I'm looking at.

As an artillery guy I'm concerned with that 5" / 54 having a greater probable error in range than probable error in deviation. I need the Navy experts to point out the destroyer differences!

redleg wrote: ↑

Mon May 13, 2024 12:40 am

Forgive my ignorance, but is there much external difference between the different versions of the Arleigh Burke?

I can't even keep straight whether something is a 'boat' or a 'ship'

There are a few differences. Flight three has a much larger hangar bay, particularly on the starboard side.

In addition, GHQ‘s flight IIa did not have a CIWS installed where the flight III will have this

I also believe GHQ will get the overall model more up to snuff comparable to their newer releases - Improved masts, electronics, etc.

This model was not on the original release schedule, but was added later

The difference is a boat is any vessel that can be put on a ship is a boat. This excludes vessels being put on floating drydocks, of course and submarines are traditionally called "boats," the tradition stemming from when a submarine COULD be carried on a vessel.

Thanks for the info guys! Every time I see someone post pics of their ships I want to get some!