Suggestions for submitting your model ideas to GHQ

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:48 am

pmskaar wrote: Cullen Hedgerow cutters

GHQ doesn't have these? (You can tell I'm not a Normandy person).

Holy Cow...makes by StuIG33b request pale in comparison

kiasutha · Post by **kiasutha** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:56 am

OK, guess I'll comment again too.
I'm really doing well , as 4 of my WW2 "suggestions" were on this years list-
Hungarian infantry & heavy weapons.
A return of the 150mm sFH-13 auf Gesch.Wgn.Lorraine
and far from least the Italian 75mm field gun.
(but please-WHAT will tow it? I'd be happy with "just guns" too...)

I tend not to comment much on lines I don't buy; but still honestly think the "1947" thing is "stark raving bonkers". Such is life...
It's hard to limit to only an item or two, so for my "short list"-

A Czech "prime mover/truck"- numerous uses here as transport & gun tug in several armies.
A Czech or Swedish "6 inch "cannon to go with it- Some potential for Germany and all the eastern european contries.
French light flak- pack of Hotchkis 25mm and 13.5mm/dual combined. At least French, German, and Romanian use for these...
Russian 76mm flak- What can you say? And it saw use by what; 3, maybe 4 Axis armies as well.
In fact, ALL my top picks have potential sale to several different armies...

Definitely worth considering but not high on my own "need" list-
the StuIG-33b- It really did take part in some important fighting, & was a gnarly piece of hardware; I really don't know why they didn't build more of them.
the FlakPz-1- the first of its kind; service from Barbarossa to Stalingrad.
I'm building my own from the "other guys" parts, but you could do it much better...
A Polish truck. EVERY army needs a truck. .And the Krauts, Russki's and probably others would buy the "slightly used" ones too. Plenty of sales there...

Last- consider repackaging some of the current models to be more amenable to "alternate uses". I know it means more inventory, but could mean more sales too. Regards,
JimR.

stenna00 · Post by **stenna00** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:23 pm

It makes sense that GHQ cannot possibly meet all demands for new releases. I am just happy that their range is expanding becase GHQ models are simply the best on the market.

I was a little disappointed at the small number of WWII releases announced for 2008-9, although I am very grateful and excited about "G527 15cm sFH13/1 Lorraine (f)" to be released in December, which I specifically requested about 2 years ago. So thank you GHQ for this.

By the way I would really like to see the M4A2 Sherman (Sherman III to the British). It was used by the British in North Africa and in large numbers in the Sicilian and Italian campaigns. In nearly all the photographs I have of Shermans in Sicily/Italy it is the Sherman III that is featured. Most M4A2's (many 1000's in number) were exported to Britain (or Russia) - it was not used by the US army. It looks quite distinct from the M4A1 Sherman (which has a cast hull) and the M4A4 Sherman (which had a lengthened hull) which are also offered by GHQ. Anyone wargaming either North Africa, Sicily or Italy would really need to field Sherman III's so I think this is a bit of gap in the range. Also I would like to see the PzIIIM with sideskirts. There were many 100's in Russia during late 1942/1943 and I am quite sure that GHQ could produce a fantastic looking version of this AFV.

I'll stop there!!

Rutgervanm · Post by **Rutgervanm** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:00 pm

With all due respect, but I think that the current M4A4 Sherman from the British range is perfectly usable as a Sherman III. As far as I can tell it has the appropriate turret and sharp edges on the driver visor slots thingies. Only thing it lacks is the cast transmission cover, but the three piece transmission cover was also used a lot in the Sherman III I believe, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Personally I couldn't agree more with Timothy O'Connor and his plea for modern insurgents other than Taliban style.

Modern African rebels in irregular clothes would really fill a gap, like gaming Black Hawk Down, while modern dressed Arabs would also be a lot more suitable for gaming Iraq and the Lebanon than the current Taliban figures.

While I think that the mercs are a good idea, I would suggest altering this to a more general modern special forces pack. Infantry with nightvision goggles, customised weapons and alternative headdress (caps, bush hats, bare headed) would be appropriate for modern special forces too with their highly individualistic gear, instead of just modern mercs.

The last type of infantry which I think should be released is a generic '50's to 80's type of infantry armed with the SLR (or FN FAL whatever you want to call it). Next to the AK 47 and M16, this was one of the most common infantry weapons ever, used by the Israeli's, British and Dutch (among many, many others). None of the current ranges of infantry is really usable for these countries in the '50s to '80s as they are either too modern or too old.

Last but not least a plea for the Bushmaster IMV and the Eurocopter Tiger.

The Eurocopter is now being used by the Australians and Spanish as well as the manufacturing countries of France and Germany. Since GHQ produce such an extensive range for those two countries, I would say that the Eurocopter Tiger is nothing more than a very logical addition to those two ranges. As has been said before on this forum, it is really a must for any credible modern European force.

The Bushmaster IMV ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_IMV ) might seem like a little more obscure vehicle type, but now that the British are also buying them, they will become more recognizable. This is a very important vehicle for the Dutch also and if I am correct, it will prove very popular with a lot of other countries in the future too.

The main reason for doing the Bushmaster though, is that it's the mainstay of the modern Australian army. Almost everything else the Aussies use is allready available (LAV's, Land Rovers, Leopard I, M1 Abrams, F18 Hornet, Chinook, Blackhawk, NH90) but since the Bushmaster is so essential to the modern Australian army, it is as of yet not possble to field a credible force for them with microarmour.

So with the addition of just two vehicles (the Bushmaster and the Eurocopter) GHQ could create a fully complete range for a country with a very important role in the modern world. None of the competing manufacturers make anything specifically for the Australians, while there are a lot of Australian gamers who would be interested in fielding forces for their own country. I think you would be hard pressed to find another crucial country with such an important military for which it is so easy to offer a complete range of vehicles and aircraft with the addition of just two new vehicles. Maximum gain for minimum effort, I would say!

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:16 am

kiasutha wrote:the StuIG-33b- It really did take part in some important fighting, & was a gnarly piece of hardware; I really don't know why they didn't build more of them.

Back in the days I played the Close Combat 3 game, this AFV did have it's troubles. The gun had to be brought in close to have decent chances of a direct hit (it didn't seem to be that accurate beyond 100m iirc). At that range, going into 1943, AT weapons were just too potent. Even the Russian AT rifles could cause havoc on that thing...there were just so many of them. Compare it to the Su122 which was also showing up at the end of 1942...at least that was on the T-34 chassis; and the SU152 which showed up a few months later, based on the KV chassis.

There's a video of the

http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/g121.html

in a French city in 1940 firing at a building no more than a block away from it's position. All one has to do is moderately slow the DVD down, & you can see the shell lobbing as soon as it comes out of the barrel.

cbovill · Post by **cbovill** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:20 am

Selecting only two models that will qualify as the two I want the most is soooo difficult. There are easily a hundred I WANT, so what are the top two that I NEED to have produced in the 2009-2010 production year?

Neither of these choices was extremely obvious to me when I started this exercise, but they slowly rose to the top of the list and showed themselves out of the massive need they would fill. Now anyone who has seen my posts is going to know that I am going to request naval models because that is what my building focus has been on for a few years now. I am interested in every single line GHQ produces, but for consideration of budget and time, I only build the 1/2400th naval miniatures, but play everything. So here are mine:

1. HMS Defence - Three ships in the Minotaur class of armored cruisers. These were the last and best CA's Britain built before switching to battlecruiser construction. Even though they were technically obsolete when WWI started, they were in great demand in every theater of war but obviously could not be deployed everywhere they were sought. HMS Defence started the war in the Med as flagship of Admiral Troubridge's cruiser squadron of four CA's. She participated in the hunt for the Goeben during that first summer of the war. Her sister HMS Minotaur was flagship of the British Far Eastern Squadron where she had expected to do battle with von Spee's German East Asia Squadron when war broke out - a great what-if scenario here. Later in the year HMS Defence would be sought after by Admiral Cradock to bolster his forces for the Battle of Coronel, so the Admiralty ordered her out of the Dardanelles and down to the South Atlantic, but the orders were later cancelled, but then reinstated too late, another good what-if. HMS Defence served under Admiral Stoddart in the Battle of the Falklands in which von Spee's Squadron was virtually inhiliated. Then there is the Battle of Jutland, all three of the class served with Admiral Arbuthnot's 1st Cruiser Squadron and saw very active service in the battle. The valiant Admiral was to go down with his ship at Jutland. Such a busy class of ship simply must be represented in the GHQ line-up.

2. HMS Prince of Wales - This model could represent all five of the battleships of this class as King George V, the only one produced with an external degaussing cable was eventually to lose this cable in a later upgrade. Yes I know all of them carried different radar suites and different AA suites at various times in their careers but truthfully, these details don't matter much at this scale, what does matter is that the degaussing cable on KGV is very prominent and very difficult to remove without damaging a $13.50 model. This class was the only modern class of battleships available to the British for all of WWII. Operationally, they participated in every theatre and in many significant battles. KGV and POW in the hunt for the Bismarck. POW transported Churchill to Newfoundland for the signing of the Atlantic Charter. POW was later sunk as part of Force Z off Singapore by Japanese air power.
KGV without the degaussing cable served with the British Pacific Fleet (BPF) from 1944 to the end and was present for the Japanese surrender.
Duke of York started the war taking Churchill to visit Roosevelt at Annapolis, later in 1943 she sank the Scharnhorst in the Battle of North Cape. Then in 1944 joined the BPFwhere she was present at Okinawa.
Anson also served in the BPF late war.
Howe served with the Home Fleet in the Atlantic, with Force H in the Med and also with the BPF in the Pacific.
These ships were everywhere and were indispensible the British war effort. They must be represented by a beautiful GHQ model that does NOT posess an external degaussing cable running the length of the ship on both sides.

So those are my choices, I have so many others that I need but these two would make me very, very happy.

Chris

kiasutha · Post by **kiasutha** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:56 am

Dr.Big:
I just don't agree on this one. But hey, ruin your case for making it if you want!

(that IS meant purely as humor, for anyone who doubts it btw)
They kept deploying the sIG33 on close support vehicles all through the war; Sturmpanzer-1, an experiment on Pz-2 (all 10? went to Rommel/AK) and the Grille/38t series at least. (did I miss any? probably...)
It was no "snipping" weapon for sure, but did its intended job well enough. And this thing was better protected against ATR's or even "real" AT weapons than most things that filled the roll. (from what I've read, russian ATR's are much more deadly in most games than in real life too...)

Rather perhaps the explanation comes from the introduction of "the next generation" in the "heavy assault howitzer" role- the "Grizzly Bear"...Not too different, just better.
And of course there was the SturmHowbitz 3 as well...
Just my thoughts on the matter...

Btw, I think I'd just give in & use the Nashorn "as is" for an "Emil" for now.
Generally similar, but I don't see a really convincing conversion, so why chop it up?
I'd also thought of the SU-76i with a Grille/Bison barrel for the StuIG33b. It really needs a new superstructure, but it's not likely both vehicles will share the same battlefield so I
guess you could just re-barrel, paint grey, & go for it...

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:13 pm

Yeah, you have a point. The Brumbaer was being planned even before the 33b's got into combat. Maybe I'll have to dust off that CC3 disk again

DAK · Post by **DAK** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:48 pm

Being a big Stalingrad fan I would buy several of the SIG33IB. So count me in for being one in favor for that one.

Urrgok · Post by **Urrgok** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:43 pm

I humbly suggest the Leopard 2a5. As is, it seems to me a huge gap in the moderns range. This tank IS the European standard, it is widely used, and is even seeing combat, for instance with the Danish Army in Afghanistan.

A proper Centurion model is also much needed, for all sorts of historical and hypothetical scenarios.

Rutgervanm · Post by **Rutgervanm** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:34 pm

Once again with all due respect, but isn't the Leopard 2A5 externally exactly the same as the Leopard 2A6 only with a shorter barrel? That would be a very easy conversion.

And what type of Centurion other than the four types allready available from GHQ would you like to see exactly?

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:05 pm

The only Centurion I can think of...OK...maybe two, are the Olifant & Aussie 'Nam Cent. Of the two, I'd like to see the South African forces

Rutgervanm · Post by **Rutgervanm** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:32 am

Didn't the Aussies just use Mk. III's with the 20pdr gun up to 1977? Or did they upgrade to the 105mm as well? In either case, the Centurion Ben Gurion model from GHQ should do fine right? Only problem might be the sideskirts, but many photos show the Australian Centurions with the sideskirts mounted in South Vietnam.

The Olifant Mk.2 might be a nice choice, but what use would that be without all the other specific South African vehicles?

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:44 am

Rutgervanm wrote: The Olifant Mk.2 might be a nice choice, but what use would that be without all the other specific South African vehicles?

Exactly, no sense in doing just one.

I wouldn't have a problem with using generic Cents for either, but the Aussie & Olifant 1A do look different enough to me that I would prefer those. The Aussie had no skirts, & that unique rear deck platform. The Olifant has the unique rear turret, no skirts, & no fenders either; quite a gruff looking animal.

I really like Cent's w/o skirts, whether it be British, S.A., Aussie or Israeli. I would definitely augment my forces with those if made.

Urrgok · Post by **Urrgok** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:29 pm

Rutgervanm wrote:Once again with all due respect, but isn't the Leopard 2A5 externally exactly the same as the Leopard 2A6 only with a shorter barrel? That would be a very easy conversion.

And what type of Centurion other than the four types allready available from GHQ would you like to see exactly?

As to the 2a5 vs. the 2a6, yes, the most obvious difference I can think of is the barrel length. I just think these small tanks are fragile enough as is, and you'd need some rather fine tools to make it look good (like a very, very small drill). But if it's just a matter of shortening the barrel on the existing 2a6 model, it should be easy for GHQ to do as well - and I'm sure it'd sell well!

There are FOUR versions of the Centurion???

I need to browse the catalogue some more, then. I can only find the British engineering version, and the Israeli Panturion. Where are the other two?