Warlord Games General Historical Discussion

[Glitterwolf]

On 11/14/2019 at 2:14 AM, EvilJames said:

After your comment an re looking at my wargames factory Zulus, they appear to be married rather than unmarried as I initially thought. 

 

That makes them veterans!

[lowlylowlycook]

So a semi-local FGS opened up recently and I was asking the owner if he could order some bolt action stuff for me, basically so I could support the store a bit even though I'm unlikely  to buy a bunch of 40 minis.  He seemed excited at the idea and also to misunderstand my request as asking to stock to game on the shelves.  Even though he had to go directly through Warlord to get what he wanted he made an order of a bunch of starter sets.   Seemed like a mistake to me given the low population and wealth density in these parts but I offered to do some demo games.  

 

Those games went pretty well and a couple people are buying in.  You could really see the difference it made to have the product right there ready to buy so maybe not such a mistake after all.  

[buglips*the*goblin]

I now have a gaming store that's only three houses down from me, and he had some Warlord stuff but didn't like having to get it directly from them so now he doesn't have any.  But, at least I have a consistent supply for paint and tools now.  

[lowlylowlycook]

Not sure what is more stunning, the global pandemic or both Wargames Atlantic and Warlord putting out plastic Italians at the same time.

[buglips*the*goblin]

20 hours ago, lowlylowlycook said:

Not sure what is more stunning, the global pandemic or both Wargames Atlantic and Warlord putting out plastic Italians at the same time.

 

Right?  (I voted for the French, tho)  It's nice, but an Italian army is a ways off for me right now, seeing as I have to finish my IJA, US Marines, Early War Germans, Soviets, US Airborne, and a gigantic horde of regiments for Quatre-Bras/Waterloo first.  If it had turned out to be plastic French I might have bumped them up in the queue since I already have a Char B1bis and FT-17, but I have zero Italian kit on hand.  

 

But I'm slowly eating through all the stuff I bought two years ago, anyway:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gadgetman!]

On 10/10/2021 at 10:46 PM, buglips*the*goblin said:

 

Right?  (I voted for the French, tho)  It's nice, but an Italian army is a ways off for me right now, seeing as I have to finish my IJA, US Marines, Early War Germans, Soviets, US Airborne, and a gigantic horde of regiments for Quatre-Bras/Waterloo first.  If it had turned out to be plastic French I might have bumped them up in the queue since I already have a Char B1bis and FT-17, but I have zero Italian kit on hand.  

 

But I'm slowly eating through all the stuff I bought two years ago, anyway:

 

 

 

I can't say this often enough or with large enough font, but... 

 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN 'FT-17' TANK!   

 

Renault NEVER used a designation other than 'FT' and neither did the French army. 

(Renault used 2character codes for all internal projects back then. And no, the letters doesn't mean anything)

 

No, they didn't call it the FT-18 when they added the 37mm gun, either. 

(The gun turret was planned in April 1917, before it's first appearance in August that year.)

The machine gun model was called 'char mitrailleuse' and the cannon equipped version was 'char canon'

It was called 'automitrailleuse à chenilles Renault FT modèle 1917' in some early design docs,(machine gun mounted on tracked car, or something) but the name 'char' was well established before this tank arrived. 

 

The confusion is probably because of the cludgework M1917 version built under license in the USA.

(Want to convert a FT into a M1917? Move the exhaust to the other side of the body. Then stick a Canadian in the driver's seat... The US Army sent the few they hadn't scrapped to Canada so they could use them as training vehicles during WWII )

 

To turn it into an Italian Fiat 3000, stick a pair of long, thin machinegun barrels on the turret(hexagon turret, only. ), remove the hinged access hatch on the front, and add an access hatch on the righthand side of the body, right underneath the turret.   

You can make the 1929 model with a 37mm cannon also, but that's boring.

[Heisler]

During WWI it should only be known by one of theses names: Renault Char d’assaut 18 chevaux or le Char Renault until some different designs came into production then it was Le Char Renault FT or Renault FT.
 

Post WWI the following names were applied; Renault FT-17, Renault FT17, Renault FT 17/18, Renault FT M17 and Char leger Renault FT 17.  While Renault FT is the most correct, the others are acceptable after the end of WWI.

 

[buglips*the*goblin]

1 hour ago, Gadgetman! said:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN 'FT-17' TANK! 

 

There's no such thing as a "Hetzer" either, but when a term is in common enough usage I don't see the need to be pedantic about such things.  Everyone knows what "FT-17" refers to, so it is a clear and useful term.  Whether it is technically correct or not is perhaps not the most salient point, especially since when one is searching for a model of the subject then FT-17 is likely to produce the desired result.  (Trenchworx makes one, they call it FT-17 on the box)  

[Gadgetman!]

So is it OK if I call it the Panzerjäger 38(t) instead of Jagdpanzer 38?    

(It was a label used in the beginning)  

Hetzer was actually the name of a related prototype at the Skoda factory.   

Guderian told The little freak with the stupid moustache and weird hairdo that the crews had nicknamed  the Panzerjäger 38 the 'Hetzer' in a memo once, and that's why historians started using the name. Whether panzer crews actually called it that is anyone's guess. 

 

So, no a Jagdpanzer 38 isn't a Hetzer, evn if it has a bit more claim to that name.     

 

Got any more of these?   

 

 

[buglips*the*goblin]

I fail to see what the purpose of this is.  The history of these vehicles is replete with colloquial terms that make for useful shorthand due to their longevity, it doesn't matter so long as all parties know which particular object is being discussed.  And to be clear, it's not that I don't know these things it's that I don't care because it's not that important.  Jumping into a conversation to nitpick about longstanding colloquial terminology doesn't further the discussion, it just makes you come off as a jerk.  

[Gadgetman!]

Actually, I am a jerk. Massively. I just try to moderate myself here. 

It's just that I elfed HATE when the wrong name is used on anything. 

It causes confusion and sometimes misunderstanding.  

 

Just because hobby historians have popularised a name is no reason to allow such travesties to continue.    

 

Do you know what a SABB is?

 

Or a SAAB?

 

Please be aware that the second is commonly(and so very incorrectly) spoken as if written like the first here in Norway.    

Lets just say that it causes a bit of irritation and issues for those who own and maintain a SABB.   

 

 

[Chaoswolf]

MOD VOICE:

 

Stop bickering about something that is pedantic and not at all relevant to the thread.

 

I myself did not know what an FT-17 was, although I inferred that was some sort of armored vehicle. Plugging FT-17 into Google comes up with verification that it is indeed an armored vehicle; a tank in fact.

 

Further Google research shows that the tankmuseum.org also refers to the vehicle in question as an FT-17. 

Tanks-encyclopedia.com notes that the vehicle wasn't referred to as an FT-17 DURING WW1, however it picked up several variations of that name afterwards.

I could go on, but the point is that quite a few actual historians refer to the vehicle as an FT-17, or some variation thereof.

The term/name may not be 100% correct, but it's close enough for a layperson to figure out what is being referred to.

 

You don't have to agree, you don't have to like it, but you DO need to stop and let this particular line of conversation go.

[buglips*the*goblin]

2 hours ago, Alejandro Morris said:

Excellent tank models.

 

Thanks.  'Excellent' might be overselling them a bit, but they didn't turn out half bad for some quick jobs.  

 

 

 

  

[buglips*the*goblin]

I've been looking for some new walls and other "fortified" terrain and can't find anything I like enough or is cheap enough for what I want.  And then I realized that since I made sandbags to spruce up my artillery bases there's no reason I couldn't do the same to make sandbag walls.  So yesterday I took out the milliput, did a row 5.5 inches long by a bit over 1/2" high (or 5 layers of bags) and worked out that to do one wall takes 1/5th of a box of milliput.  Milliput presently goes for $9 canadian at the LGS next door, which gives me $1.80 per wall.  That's not bad overall, so I went up and asked how much Milliput they had in store.  And then I took all of it.  Because I'm gonna need a lot of walls.  (I may also make other emplacements)

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by buglips*the*goblin

[Rob Dean]

@buglips*the*goblin I recall one convention game sponsored by my club with endless sandbag emplacements made from varnished Chiclet gum pieces.  I have no idea how that would hold up over the long term, whatever long might be in your context…