Warriors Update

planetFigure

Help Support planetFigure:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

bchilstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2004
Messages
241
IMG_5424.JPG
IMG_5418.JPG
IMG_5432.jpg


Here we have in progress shots of figure #2 & #3 and a shot of all three of the first figures, posed in the AAVP7. These first three and the next two figures all represent Marines in the standard BDU's. The next set will be Marines in the MOLLE suits seen early in the campaign.

Plus a few other O.I.F. accessory items planned.

Hope you like 'em.
 
Looks good!

The only thing is the M-249. That's the older stock... not used in OIF.

BTW, when is that M-16/M-4 kit going to be released by Warriors?
 
Hi guys,

Thanks for the input, we will putty up the stock soon. The Warriors M16/M4 weapons set is still being mastered, no production yet, only test shots. So no firm release date is known.
 
Bill
My hat off to you, my friend!
The figures look great. IMHO,
a figure with weapon firing pose
is very hard to execute...
What is your secret??? :)
I love the poses.

Cheers
Taesung
 
Charlie,
Are you sure about the M249 stock? Not every unit was modernized with the new weapon prior to deployment...It's not too much of a stretch that the older weapon would be used in the early phases of the operation.

All the best

Patrick
 
Originally posted by Patrick Kirk@Jan 31 2005, 09:18 AM
Charlie,
Are you sure about the M249 stock? Not every unit was modernized with the new weapon prior to deployment...It's not too much of a stretch that the older weapon would be used in the early phases of the operation.

All the best

Patrick
I'm pretty sure Patrick. At least I haven't seen any pics of any in action.

I believe all the M249's in USMC use were retrofitted with the new stock in the '90's.
 
Charlie,
Could you please clarify your references? I did a little digging around and found pictures taken as early as last month showing the "old version" of the SAW in use. By the way, I think Patrick is correct since I'm sure he's checked out on it recently ;)
 
Originally posted by Guest@Jan 31 2005, 03:58 PM
Pete,

You might be confusing the "short barrel" SAW with the early stock M-249.

In addition to it's shorter barrel...the "shorty" also has a collapsible stock, which looks similar to the early SAW stock when fully extended.

I've reviewed several hundred pics for a couple of pieces I'm working on.

I'd be interested to see picture that you saw though.
Sorry, forgot to log in.
 
Nope. I saw several pics of Marines armed with the "older model" of the SAW. I saw them in Time's "21 days to Baghdad." I wish my scanner worked. I also spoke to a friend up at Camp Pendleton earlier today (a squad leader) and he tells me they're still hauling around the original 249.
 
Originally posted by Pete_H@Jan 31 2005, 06:29 PM
Nope. I saw several pics of Marines armed with the "older model" of the SAW. I saw them in Time's "21 days to Baghdad." I wish my scanner worked. I also spoke to a friend up at Camp Pendleton earlier today (a squad leader) and he tells me they're still hauling around the original 249.
Thanks. I looked through that book awhile ago, but I don't remember seeing any older SAW's. I'll check it out again.
 
Look, my point is simple, we have introduced many units from the reserves and national guard to the fight. And, not every unit is modernized with the latest generation of weapon systems at the same time. Also you need to consider the fact that weapons malfunction in combat, they need repairing like any machine, and who is to say the armorer issued the older SAW for this mission because the newer one is in maintenance or down for a part. This happens more than you would expect.

Let's not get wrapped up into the TO&E application for what should be in a Marine rifle squad; when dealing with the reality of close combat the TO&E isn't the forcing function. What is the forcing function is what gets you through the engagement, be it a AK47, a M16A2 or a Carbine or a SAW. "Joe" is going to use whatever means are avialable to him to whoop someone's arshe and it doesn't matter to him if the weapon is part of the TO&E or not. This is reality; and, Bill has captured the passion of a firefight very well.

Do our soldiers and Marines have the best equipment, damn straight they do! But don't loose sight that Murphy has a vote in combat operations, too. And gentlemen, it is not unimaginable or wrong if there is a mixture of weapons in an engagement or operation...

Pictures are invaluable to our passion, but they aren't the sole source of what is factual. We have to balance them against the lithmus test of reality...and seeing where we are in this operation, the historical perspective is very real and very current.

If I have ruffled some feathers then we need to take a step back. But we have to consider those things that are beyond what is captured on film...

Bill is doing a great job, and am eager to see how this vignette progresses.


Patrick
 
Patrick,
Very well said. I don't see how you could have ruffled any feathers with your elloquent post. First, you're speaking as an authority on the subject because you are an authority on the subject (I'd say 20+ years in the armed forces makes you one). Second, you're driving home a very valid point: such nitpicking is distracting from the intent of making a model in the first place.

Good job (y)
 
Back
Top