Monday, 12 January 2015

From AdamC - 15mm US M10 Tank Destroyers (18 Points)

I'm an avid player of friendly (ie non-tournament) games of Flames of War.  When the new tank destroyer rules came out with version 3 many felt that these lightly armoured but heavily gunned armoured vehicles were "Broken."  I was never as convinced of this as others, but I did have the feeling that many people didn't find them fun to face so as a friendly gamer I avoided them.


Battle Front has changed the rules to address these issues and you don't see nearly so many complaints these days.  Since they are cool looking vehicles and quite handy when facing the super heavy German armor has been featured in several of recent books I decided it was time to get some.


I really like the detains on the turrets and the fact that you can see the crew and the ammunition.


I added several pieces of stowage from my dead lead box.  My one complaint with these models is they did not include any stowage to make the vehicles unique.


There are two 15mm vehicles with three crew each which should give me a total of 18 points.

Didn't get as much painting done this week other than these and the Civil War regiment posted to the Victorian Theme Sunday.  Weather has limited my ability to get pieces primed and ready to go its been too cold to be outside or snowing/drizzling around here. Such is Winter in New England (I know some of you Canadians are sneering at me) (Yes. Yes, we definitely are. In fact, the sneer is frozen on my face... - ed).

17 comments:

  1. Those are great looking models. I've always loved TDs. I have a couple of those sitting in the basement, waiting for a 15mm WW II ruleset that isn't FoW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear good things about Chain of Command but have never played it, might be worth checking out if your dead set against Flames of War.

      Delete
    2. Very nice work indeed - TDs are pretty cool ,especially when they are this well painted.
      I'll second Chain of Command - a very good rule set indeed and there is a series of YouTube videos where the designer, Richard Clarke, takes you through how the game works. Intended for 'platoon plus' i.e. a platoon plus some support. For company level I'd recommend I Ain't Been Shot Mum and Battlegroup Kursk.

      Delete
  2. I do like a good tank destroyer, Adam, and you've done a great job with these two.

    Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lovely stuff, nice to see TD's for a change

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nicely job on the tanks and the crew looks great as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Really like the colour of the tanks and the extra stowage as you say breaks them up into individual pieces. Really good wrk

    Ian

    ReplyDelete
  6. Really nice indeed. They should fit well into the FoW game, I found it a great entry point to WW2 gaming.... Only problem is everyone talking about other tempting rule sets!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ah but one of the beautiful things about Historical gaming is a Sherman tank is Sherman tank in any rules set. Basing conventions differ but if your a modern writer of rules and you make overly specific basing rules your hurting your own product IMHO

      Delete
  7. Great painting work and very nice colour for the vehicles.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TDs are very nice. Really like the painting, and great additions to any US WW2 force.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nice looking tank destroyers Adam :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Excellent tank destroyers! I too would like to see more generosity for battlefront tank stowage. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks guys there is only so much you can do with Allied Armor it took me a long time to get a combinations of washes and dry brushing that had personality but was still reasonably correct. T

    ReplyDelete
  12. These are jolly good! The depth on the green is superb.

    ReplyDelete
  13. They look very nice, Adam! The stowage added sets them apart. It also makes them look a little more lived in too! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nice work! I like the fact you can see the crew and ammo, too.

    ReplyDelete