Forum Replies Created
Here are more Brothers-in-Arms, painted with the Wargames Foundry Forest Green triad for the uniform:
Thank you. It has taken a few years to perfect. I am writing an illustrated ‘how to’ guide. It will be published online so I will put up the link to the free PDF when it is available.
I am not sure about layer height but looks like 20-25 microns to me. Acrylic paint would certainly crack and possibly flake. The goal is to avoid breakage with less dramatic ‘knocks’ but the photo illustrates an extreme scenario.
Thank you. Testament to the quality of the 3D digital sculpts and the quality of the resin printer.
And a prone Chauchat gunner:
Some more figures, including a Chauchat gunner march-firing:
Here is a British light dragoon command stand (30 x 30mm to give you a sense of scale):
The models are 6mm – sorry, forgot to mention earlier.
Like this you mean:
Robert09/08/2022 at 03:42 in reply to: War Times Journal forced to end 3D print production #176719
This happened to WTJ once before and they managed to find another print partner, as suggested. The key problem was finding a partner that produced prints to the standards required. Having done it once before…
While it is a nice tool for something, I expect I would not be one to use it often, for the same reasons I don’t like 3d modeling software with meshes.
3D digital modelling is not everyone’s cup of tea, for sure. As an aside, the other thing that is helpful with 3D modelling is the ability to create and print components for a scratch-build. Another example was a 1/35 scale model of a British Mk IV tank that was missing multiple metal-cast elements. The manufacturer never replied to my request for replacements. Here is the end result, despite the problems:
Here is an example of a part that was missing, being drafted in the 3D CAD software. I scanned in the photo-etched side of the tank and adjusted the scan to true scale:
And here are the three parts ready to print:
The scratch-built fort looks better because it is painted. This really helps the details on what was otherwise an ‘ordinary’ looking effort on my part. The advantage of the 3D version is that friends don’t have to go through the same scratch-build process to get the same model. It is the general principle that I was trying to illustrate.
50 photos took me about 5 minutes. The model gets placed on a tripod with a circular disc that has segments marked out, with each segment associated with a specific set of coloured dots. This provides the background for the photogrammetry software to understand the direction and distance of each camera location. The disc allows me to walk around the tripod taking a photo at ‘ground’ level and a photo angled at around 45 degrees up from the horizontal plane opposite each segment on the disc.
Here is a photo of Fort Sedd-el-Bahr, on Cape Helles during the Gallipoli landings. The model was scratch-built:
Here is another view of the same model:
Here is the 3D model created using photogrammetry:
And the 3D resin print:
I used the iPhone handheld to produce the 50 views needed by the software. With my ‘proper’ camera, the quality of the 3D model is even better. Plus I can easily improve the 3D model in the CAD software. It is so much easier than trying to create the model in 3D – not so much the walls but the terrain for example.
During lockdown, I was able to create 3D reproductions of 6mm WW1 figures/bases/labels for use online in Table Top Simulator using photogrammetry. The models are fully 3 dimensional, not just bas relief.
I have seen examples of actual buildings reproduced in 6mm based on 3D models created from photos taken using drones. Photogrammetry is an extraordinary technology.
Photogrammetry is the other way of getting physical models rendered as 3D digital objects.
There is a summary of the information here:
At the bottom of the web page, there is a reference to the source article which you can search for online. I picked up a copy via another group that I have access to.
The information about chauchats came from the son of a Flammenwerfer Pioneer who served during WW1.
Perhaps the first step is to establish clear definitions for the unit types. For AEF regular army units (not including US Marine Corps which had a different TO&E), each rifle company had 4 platoons. Each platoon was organised into sections. Each section was made up of squads, so the concept of ‘squad’ was lower down the organisation, which can lead to some confusion.
The TMB description is not quite right for battlefield operations. It represents the in-between battles organisation but AEF platoon commanders reorganised the sections (and their composite squads) into half platoons, similar to the French concept. An AEF half-platoon would comprise:
1 x Rifle Squad (8 men)
1 x LMG Squad, each with 2 Chauchats (7 men – 1 NCO and two LMG teams, each with: 1 gunner and two ammo carriers)
2 x Grenadier Squads, comprising VB grenadiers supported by carriers and riflemen, all capable of operating as hand bombers. Each squad would have roughly 8-10, given losses from pandemic, battlefield casualties, etc
So a platoon will have 8 squads altogether, comprising:
- 2 x Riflemen squads
- 2 x LMG squads
- 4 x VB grenadier squads – but you could reasonably use 2 x VB grenadier and 2 x bomber squads if you wish. This reflects the fact that configurations could be altered depending on the circumstances of each battle. An open-warfare scenario late-war is more likely to see 4 x VB grenadier squads for example, compared to a trench warfare example.
Referring back to the thread on French TO&Es, the late-war Chauchat was not more stoppage prone that other LMGs. Unit-based aggregation of firepower stats, which is how Trench Hammer works, should never be based on anecdotal reports of how a single gun works in practice in any case. The AEF Chauchat teams, organised into the two-gun squads, had considerable stopping power and were a key asset in attack. The squads took as many Chauchats into battle as possible but this was not unique to the AEF, as infantry teams across the nations came to respect the utility of LMGs. German specialist Stosstruppen paid bonuses from the unit’s mess funds to men who captured Chauchats for re-use within the team, such was the respect for the Chauchat.
Thank you for the report and the photos! Unfortunately you did not miss the WW1 game. We did. I had to cancel attendance due to an urgent issue that arose through work – so no guessing what I had to do during the weekend instead 🙁
Gutted. But everything is all boxed up ready for next year and Peter has already pencilled the Gallipoli game in…
Robert31/05/2022 at 07:14 in reply to: Creating a forum to replace a Facebook group. Is it possible? #173845
Groups IO is good. Another option is Discord.
I went over to Table Top Tyrant too, once FiC went out of business. The foam is very good and matches the upper layer of FiC inserts. The bottom isn’t as dense, as Ian mentioned, but quite ok.
The example you have shown looks like the Figures in Comfort range. I don’t think the company is still in business.
The Great War is my interest. This stems from talking with my Grandfather when I was young. He served in the New Zealand Machine Gun Corps. Unlike many veterans, he was prepared to talk about his experiences but, interestingly, only in the third person. I wanted to understand more about the context in which he fought, including the German perspective. One of his mementos was a photograph of a German soldier and his young family. The soldier had passed it to my Grandfather as he lay dying in a captured trench.
My favourite ruleset is Great War Spearhead. It simulates division- and corps-size battles throughout WW1. One thing that I have enjoyed is the ability of the rules to scale easily for much larger engagements. A group of us replayed the First Battle of the Marne for example. More important is the insights I have gained from replaying historical actions. Being able to recreate the terrain was important. Here are the 20 metre contours being put in place with Hexon terrain pieces:
The Hexons are then covered with battlemats and representations of forests, rivers, main roads, etc. This photo is part of the trial run for creating the Battle of the Marne terrain:
And the final outcome, with all of the relevant terrain set up in the commemorative chapel in Dormans on the 100th anniversary of the battle (2014):
When setting up historical scenarios, it has been important (and really enjoyable) to research as much as possible. The rules have prompted this. I can access and read sources in other languages now, so a new set of skills acquired from that perspective.
Assembling the details of an historical action has another benefit. The results of a game(s) can be compared with the historical outcome(s). This has provided very important validation checks for the rules. There have been very few changes required in the rules over more than a decade, testament to the original Spearhead concepts and the work that Shawn Taylor put into the Great War variant. One example is the rule on the Mad Minute. British infantry companies (the company being the smallest unit represented on a stand) had a firing bonus in the first version of the rules, based on the British accounts of terrible casualties inflicted on the Germans in the Battle of Mons (August 1914) for example. Research showed, however, that the British version of the battle was incorrect. Yes, German attackers went down in large numbers under British rifle fire but the German soldiers were taking cover as trained. Casualties were relatively light overall; far fewer casualties than the British estimated. The Mad Minute ‘bonus’ was dropped from the second version of the rules, not least because research also showed that French and German soldiers were trained in the same technique of massed rifle fire known by the British as musketry.
Which brings me to the most interesting aspect of all, personally. Thanks to the rules, I can spot unexplained gaps in historical accounts. Three examples stand out. The first two relate to the development of Gallipoli scenarios. I modelled the Battle of Sari Bair. Historically, the New Zealanders managed to take Chunuk Bair. Here is a game of the battle:
After the failure to take the high ground during the previous day, the Ottoman forces were heavily reinforced on day 2. This can be seen from the density of infantry stands in the foreground. How on earth did the New Zealanders even get onto Chunuk Bair, which is located under the set of stands labelled ’64IR’ (Ottoman 64th Infantry Regiment) in the photo above? The terrain did not help; there was no defilade for the New Zealanders. The terrain set up helped to confirm this, as illustrated in this view along the Sari Bair ridge with the Battle of Lone Pine raging in the foreground:
One New Zealand account mentioned that the Ottoman machine gunners facing them were asleep. This did not seem like a plausible explanation. It was possible to get the Ottoman battle map, with the dispositions of the defensive forces and the set up on the table illustrated here:
The key to the successful assault was found in the Ottoman regimental accounts. The combined naval and land-based heavy howitzer bombardment preceded the New Zealand assault. The naval gunfire was direct observed fire and the effects can be seen in the game with the thinning of the Ottoman regiment and the suppression markers on two surviving infantry companies.
In a similar vein, it was hard to understand how the Ottoman defenders of the Cape Helles landings succeeded in holding up the British. The defenders were pounded with super-heavy naval shells for example. The game illustrated some of the factors at play. Here is V Beach landings, showing how the uncut wire contributed:
But the game pointed to other variables being at play to protect the heavily outnumbered Ottomans from the devastating naval gunfire support. Ottoman sources provided further insights. The Gallipoli peninsula had been subject to ‘modern’ naval gunfire before WW1 and the Ottomans had taken appropriate counter-measures in preparing the Cape Helles defences. I was even able to discover details of the forts that over-watched V-Beach and how these were designed to accommodate and protect the tenacious Ottoman defenders.
The final example relates to an action my Grandfather was involved in. It was the defensive battle on March 26th 1918. The Germans had broken through the British lines on March 21st and were about to exploit a gap in the hasty British defences between Hébuterne in the north and the Ancre river in the south. The New Zealanders arrived and, with the support of Whippet tanks, stopped the German advance and plugged the gap. I remember my Grandfather showing me the British battle map of the area that he had kept. I found all but one of the German regimental accounts for this action. Replaying the action pointed to the importance of understanding what happened to this regiment. I intensified the search for information and have been able to establish why the regiment failed to appear on the battlefield that day.
Historical wargaming has really helped direct my wider research efforts and to understand more thoroughly why the Great War played out as it did. The rules have been instrumental in driving these efforts.
Some Russian hussars from the Soumy Regiment. First squadron so far.
Chasseurs à cheval:
Thank you very much.
Here are British light dragoons:
Here are the British heavy dragoons:
Thanks. Yes, they can be scaled. For 10, 12, and 15mm, the figures can be re-sized accordingly across all axes (height, width and length). For 20mm, some players have reduced the width slightly to conform with the metal figures in their collection.
A Sarissa Precision village house has become the focus of this firefight:
The firefight intensifies:
Viet Minh following close behind…
Some time in the early 1950s; somewhere in French Indochina…
Thank you very much. Viet Minh are just about ready. Lots of variety in uniforms and equipment too.
The WTJ 3D printed models are very good. Here is an example of Turgut Reis, a German Brandenburg Class battleship, formerly SMS Weissenburg. She was purchased by the Ottoman navy in 1910, along with her sister ship Hayreddin Barbarossa (formerly SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm). Both ships provided naval gunfire support for the Ottoman amphibious assault at Şarköy during the Balkan Wars. This model is 1/1250 scale.
The files are part of a Kickstarter (see here). There are three figures that can be downloaded for free. I think the others will be available in about one week’s time (ie. 15th November-ish 2021).
How would the floating horizontal bits print?
Given the scale then the distances between the bindings on either side will be small enough to permit the bindings to act as the supports.
Thank you for posting. By the look of the fence, it wouldn’t have needed supports. Nicely sculpted.
Thanks, Tony S. Camouflage can hide a multitude of sins. You can see the difference with the German anti-tank rifle crews. Both team members needed the mosaic pattern as well. Even at 15mm, the different helmet style is apparent (IMHO).
Thank you. I used a right old mix of colours for the German uniforms, including Feldgrau from Vallejo, AK Interactive, and the two sets of triads from Wargames Foundry. Standard grey colours were used too, especially for trousers.
A 37mm infantry gun was used by the French, Americans, and the Austro-Hungarians. The French/US version was manufactured by the same company, Puteaux, that made the Main Gun for the Renault FT17 but had a lower muzzle velocity (about 50% less). Here is my suggestion, based on the Type 95 37mm used on the Japanese light tank:
WEAPON: 37MM IG/ATG
HE/EFF: 1/1 SQ
These stats will work for the German 37mm anti-tank gun too.
The Granatwerfer fired HE and smoke. It is equivalent to the 50-60mm Mortars, 2″ Mortar category, with 3 Attack Dice and no Kill Potential. The smoke round will be two stand-widths long.
Flammenwerfer teams operate as Assault Engineers, getting the +1 bonus in Close Combat.