Mars WWII German Luftwaffe once again we have the advance report of a future Mars release. This time is German Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe had paratroopers and later field units. Once again these figures will fill your German forces.
Mars WWII German Luftwaffe The figures
Like other Mars figure sets the set contains 15 figures in eight poses.
The poses are as follows
- Grenade thrower lean back on his right foot
- Standing firing rifle leaning to the right
- Standing firing straight up
- Soldier shot left hand upon near his neck right arm has a rifle
- Officer advancing firing pistol
- A soldier running with Schmeiser
- Standing firing Schmeiser in camouflage
- Kneeling right leg out firing panzerfaust
Here we have how the figures will look painted. As you will notice with the exception of one figure the other figures have camouflage garments. This is something has been done to a limited degree. I feel the figures look nicer when they are painted.
We thank Peter Bergner and Kent Sprecher for the photos. Kent also mention that
The WWII German Naval troops
Mars WWII German Luftwaffe Other Items
Since we have some room I will cover a few other items. First, we have the Auburn armored car. This was done first in plastic and then done in plastic. My question what is this was is the Auburn armored car based on?
I love how the Chinese make these strange tanks. this one has three gun barrels and two rockets on its side. I don’t remember where I picked it up.
Here is one of the Ideal Battle Action figures. Ideal did nine different figures in this series and were use with Battle Action figures. One thing I have to watch is the figures get dust on them I do not see until after the figure is photographed.
The Aurburn under scale is A halftrack M2-3 not an armored car and is base in M2 or M3 .Aurburn looks more as M2 while Marx version made x playsets in small scale looks more an M3 in my opinion .Again both are toys and not direct copies .
The large scale Marx(made for training center ) and Ideal version are more likely M2 version in my view .Again not replicas but could be either or .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Half-track.
I’m curious to know what the numbers in it mean .
The tank is chinese generic toy hybrid made up tank with chassis base in typical Russian T line tanks from pre 1944 designs such t20S-T34 I have it and the top view will give better idea of chassis,the turret is like a space tank i guess.
I think is good for futuristic war such warcraft and war gamers ,also to use with futuristic marines sets and Tecnolog modern space soldiers sets.
I been looking x those Ideal poses x long in good condition,every time i run in to one is wasted ,damage,bent or else .The poses and uniforms are more WW2 versus Marx .The scale match with Ideal ,MARX 65 or 60 mm ,TM-PP , Aurburn and all European made tall scale line plus of course the new EXF WW2 made so tall in 65 mm least and SAFARY LTD in 65 mm revised copies of Britain airfix.
best
These Germans look good: I hope that is a production color: it will match the old Airfix well.
I agree; it looks like Mars is on target. Good news to see them improving their quality.
I don’t like the “Getting shot” poses,would rather have the dead/wounded body laying on the ground.
Are the Mars figures supposed to be paratroopers? If they are they don’t have the correct helmet.
The Luftwaffe troops were not paratroopers. From memory Goring used surplus Luftwaffe personel to form about 20 field divisions. They were equipped well enough but their training and officers were not good. Almost all of them were shattered in their first action. It was a terrible waste of men, when they could otherwise have been used to rebuild dozens of proper infantry units.
I agree these are more troops than paratroopers. Goering wasted men
Good posing and sculpting on the MARS Luftwaffe set —- maybe their best yet, with the exception of the soon-to-be-released pirates.
Some collectors say they want dead bodies. Others say they want “action” poses. Some want this. Some want that. But with eight (8) different poses in a set, a manufacturer can’t do everything for everybody. Nevertheless, it seems MARS is trying to give 1/32 scale collectors a wider variety of subject matter, similar to what HO-scale collectors have long enjoyed.
The Mars Caribbean Pirates and German naval troops have been shipped to me and I should have them next week.
Yes, they are supposed to be Hermann Goering Division which acted as ground troops for the Luftwaffe. I always wanted someone to make them (Conte would have been nice); though it looks like I will be settling for Mars. The color of the figures in the picture makes them seem that they will be a darker grey than they really are so buyer beware on that. I imagine they will match the Mars Elite Germans which are in quite a light grey. I ended up painting them a darker grey because I was unhappy with the color. I’m glad you all are excited for these. I am much more excited for the Plastic Platoon, Austin Miniatures Japanese, Conte’s next plastic offering, and whatever John Stengel Jr. has cooking. Just because the hobby has seen better days does not mean we have to settle for second or third tier figures; especially for the Germans who have an abundance of quality troops available from Conte, TSSD, Marx, Airfix, Matchbox and on and on. Just my thoughts.
Rusty Kern points out that with the closing of TSSD and Barzso, there are only three remaining U.S.-based manufacturers of new plastic production — CTS, Paragon, and Austin Miniatures.
At this rate, we may soon be “settling” for “nothing”.
I know Michael’s Closet, as “successor” to TSSD, is talking about “eventually” or “possibly” producing new plastic figures, as was Richard Conte awhile back. But if you read their comments closely and between the lines, you get the impression any plans either of these companies have for future new production plastic are indefinite, ambiguous, and hazy, interspersed with a bunch of “maybes”.
In the meantime, all we’ve basically got are figures from overseas-based companies: Expeditionary Force (moderately expensive), Plastic Platoon & other assorted Russian makers (very expensive), and MARS (less expensive). I assume the level of production, sculpting, and plastic quality will usually be in direct ratio to price.
Obviously, the decline in the age and number of toy soldier collectors mirrors the decline in the number of toy soldier producers, as well as the decline in the number & frequency of toy soldier shows, all of which used to be quite plentiful.
In the meantime, I’ve resolved to be grateful for what we’ve got, and to avoid being too “fussy” about things.
Don, please do not overlook Green Bay, WI based LOD figures. Great figures with steady new releases.
I can see marked improvement in the Mars Luftwaffe ground troops compared to earlier releases.
I did totally forget about LOD, as did Rusty Kern when we were having our short telephone conversation.
It’s unforgivable (at least on my part) because I’ve been a happy purchaser of everything LOD has made, and am especially appreciative of LOD’s War at Troy line.
Luftwaffe ground troops/Hermann Goering Division did not wear the Fallschirmjager smock. The latter did not wear the Wehrmacht helmet. This is a strange mixture of troop types.
https://ospreypublishing.com/store/military-history/series-books/men-at-arms/the-hermann-goring-division The Hermann Goring Division
https://ospreypublishing.com/luftwaffe-airborne-and-field-units-pb “Luftwaffe Airborne and Field Units
Osprey books are not the best things.They are full errors and the data is a mixture recollection with
not order primarily intended x amateurs
Series warriors had been criticized a lot in plenty books and by true historians included other books.
They are made by authors who on some use with as their first booklet work.
They even paint German in kriegsmarine in black and that is wrong epiction that been pass to others to make same repeated mistake.
German smokejumpsuit was made specifacally x paratroopers unit only.
best
Just for fun, I decided to do a Wikipedia check on the credentials of Gordon Williamson, listed as the author of the Osprey Men-At-Arms “Hermann Goring Division”, shown above in Brian Johnson’s link. According to Wikipedia, Mr. Williamson (born 1951) is a “British military historian” who has authored more than 40 books and other publications on topics such as U-boats, military insignia, flying aces, the Waffen-SS, and special forces. Wikipedia also states he has authored “over 20 books on the Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht.” This volume doesn’t really seem to be the author’s “first booklet work”, as Erwin alleges.
I then decided I would do the same check on Michael Windrow, listed above as the author of the second Osprey Men-At-Arms volume, “Luftwaffe Airborne and Field Units”. Wikipedia also identifies Mr. Windrow (born 1944) as a “British military historian”, as well as an “Associate of the Royal Historical Society”. He is further listed as the author of “several hundred books, articles, and monographs, particularly those on organizational or physical details of military history”, including “The Last Valley”, an account of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu during the First Indochine War, published in 2004 to “critical acclaim”, according to Wikipedia.
All in all, it would appear to me that these Osprey authors have most likely done their research, and seem well-qualified to write about such subjects. Their writings would hold more weight with me than would the opinions of most others on this board, including anyone who sets himself up as an infallible expert.
Similarly, I think the Osprey Men-At-Arms series is well-regarded, and generally considered authoritative. I’m skeptical of Erwin’s claim that the Osprey books are “full of errors”.
Until I see proof of such a claim, with actual evidence, I think I’ll continue to stick with Osprey and the recognized military historians who write the Osprey volumes.
Since when wikepedia is a professional source Don?
Is actually discourage at university entry level to use it as a source.
Like wise there plenty blogs and two books about history of German uniforms both make claim to such error.
But if look well previews post I use the same wikepedia to post infact a correct link that is used a color German museum link were it show clearly the color used by Kriegsmarine and it show royal blue versus never black used and WRONG depicted in Osprey books and wrong copied by Mars .So all u have to do is clearly use more better proffesional data versus amateurs.
that is clearly what Hollywood use most time too.
I will look in to title of my books and type title.
The books i did refer were made with actually correction referring to actual pages of Osprey booklets.
best
The best thing about the upcoming MARS sets is that they’re covering WWII subjects that have never been done in 1:32 plastic before! Yes, the sculpting is a 7/10. and YES they are a little under-scaled, but they are filling in the much needed gaps for the die-hard collectors! MARS, PLEASE, UP-SCALE your figures a bit to be truly 1:32 and compatible with current sets!
I guess a source is considered a good source if it agrees with one’s preconceptions or opinion and a bad source if it disagrees.
Exactly. And sometimes, when we look at the record of published books, publications, articles, and monographs, numbering in the hundreds as tabulated in a Wikipedia profile, as are the two Osprey authors discussed above, a reasonable person might be willing to concede a certain level of expertise, rather than simply opining that their works are “full of errors”, “first booklet work”, and not “true historians — none of which, in the case of Osprey Men-At-Arms series, seems to have any foundation in truth.
In fact, I would be curious to hear the names of the “true historians” Erwin refers to who claim the Osprey Men-At-Arms series is “full of errors”. I would like their names, so I can check what Wikipedia says about THEM, as well as an actual citation where they challenge the general factuality of Osprey’s Men-At-Arms series, as Erwin alleges they do.
Wikipedia is not a good source for factual information but a reasonable starting point to do your own fact checking from, this is because anyone can change anything on the Wikipedia page you don’t have to be an ‘expert’. Not my opinion just common knowledge here in the U.K.
On the subject of the OSPREY ‘Men-At-Arms ‘ books the information contained within them varies depending on subject matter and when the book was originally published. As the years go on more information comes to light which means that some of the subjects can be upgraded with new and corrected information. Examples being the subject which started the entire series ‘The French Foreign Legion’ by Martin Windrow, an actual expert on that regiment who has since created another 4 or 5 volumes for Osprey expanding on the original book plus hardback volumes for other more specialised publishers.
Some of the more exotic subject matter currently produced would be difficult to check due to access to the factual content which is not available in English to refer to, so you would have to take them at face value. So the MAA series has some good points too. Most collectors and wargamers I’ve spoken to ,find them useful as an entry point into a new period as they are easy to obtain and not too expensive, if their interest is peaked then they find a more substantial publication. So they do have their uses in our hobby, especially if the plastic soldier maker has used them as a reference source and created the man from the illustration.
My opinion based on factual encounters with buyers of the publications as I used to be a retailer of these books and have had interaction with the readers.
The newer Opsreys might not have many historical errors but seem to have plenty typos as they are checked by computers instead of real people 🙂
I’m not sure that listing someone as a ‘British Military Historian’ is an actual qualification, over here I understand you would have letters after your name had you attended university and obtained a degree in History.
Gordon Williamson is/was a Scottish Police Officer with a reputation of someone with an interest in the German Third Reich and author of many books on that subject. Militaria Collectors have identified errors in his works.
Martin Windrow is the Editor of the Osprey MAA series and has been since they started, I’m not aware that he has any qualification as an Historian either, it isn’t mentioned on the inside cover of the actual books.
It would be interesting to find out what their actual qualifications are.
Les, what you describe as “common knowledge [about Wikipedia] over in the U.K. is actually the same “common knowledge” we have about it over here in the U.S.
And if you are “not aware” of Martin Windrow’s qualifications as a historian, I would refer you to Wikipedia’s short biographical essay as a “good starting point”, since it lays out the impressive range of his published work.
And the words “published work” are key. Having your historical writings published is the difference between Martin Windrow (published) as opposed to you, me, and Erwin (all of us being unpublished) — at least by a professional publishing house.
Don you like to mix-miss interpret my words a lot.
First, I made a comment regarding the illustration samples of Brian posting versus correct historical fact comments of others.
Your research went to opposite direction.
Such author did not write about the LwFD- (Luftwaffe Field Division.) but general about the Luftwaffe army
They are two different” things”-Units- corps even so carry alike names.
The ones writing about such unit the historical debate (No the set is about) are Kevin Conley Ruffner and David Westwood.
The set is apparently a mix generic set as point out by others. The title in set post here in this blog may create some confusing thoughts with logic
They are neither LwFD, paratroop or Luftwaffe unit homogeneous unit troopers set but a mix to be use generic for multipurpose I will think.
Regarding Osprey books ….
Again, I know plenty many in this hobby and wargamer use Osprey as a bible and don’t take me wrong. They are quite interesting well-done illustrated books but…
It depends entirely on the book. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases even if the color plates are based on reliable historical information, the artists can misinterpret the evidence, causing odd reconstructions. In other cases, the authors are simply not that informative on certain subjects.
Let’s not forget the illustrator may either have free will or edition to do some works in not exact historical context.
Historical deep research proof-shows there is plenty errors and unfortunately simple look at history is the best way to get along, included for toy figures collectors as they are more “toys” than else. Why worry so much about accuracy when we can play with then.
Last but no least as mention by others. Osprey often updated to correct previews mistakes and as time pass same author or other add new edition with new or corrected info update. Often calling 2nd or 3 er part of same unit, army else.
Books I use better
An illustrate encyclopedia of Uniforms of World War II by Jonathan North and Jeremy Black
Page 134-135 Has two paragraphs dedicated specially to the uniform the Luftwaffe Field Division.
In it one of specification indicate the LwFD- (Luftwaffe Field Division.) did not make use of Paratrooper helmet and the smock-Jumpsuit.
While the 1942-1943 adopted and copy the Bergmuttze mountain troop tunic, the short fliegerberger Luftwaffe tunic but without pocket as it was much cheaper to make than complicated longer paratrooper jump suit smock. Also copied and adopted another HERR tunic such Jagger’s parka and else plus other. Because the Luftwaffe Field Division felt in to the direct jurisdiction and supply line of the regular infantry army unit it was direct supplied by then. From main staff they were command by Luftwaffe till 1943 when they become part of direct command of the HERR-German regular army
While Paratroopers units were specially supplied by special section of the Air Force-Luftwaffe
As interesting note, I found out some units in the LFD were Italians …
Some late 1944 units in the north Italian reformed fascist forces that integrated mix with German LFD did ware Italian helmet (Meaning Italian soldiers attach to these division use the Italian helmet with the above German uniforms.).
Likewise, Same book mention before in page 132 that (Fallschirmjäger)-paratrooper units did ware the pattern and made for then only. The unique Long tunic jump suit in the two version that contain many inside and outside pockets made specially for requirement of these troopers. A thick winter version and over pant was also design for then too exclusively. Same goes for the special made unique paratrooper Helmet version M36 and M38.
Regarding Especially German paratroopers’ units, uniforms and deep history detail I recommend a more serious study” German Paratroopers Series by Karl Veltzé”
About These Authors
Jeremy Black easy found in Wikipedia at first glance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Black_(historian)
Jonathan North
His own link
http://www.jpnorth.co.uk/about-me/
The bibliography they use are extensive and direct Museum reference data as well. No need for me to list it here.
Regarding David Westwood that is one of Osprey book author as well. If we use Wikipedia so reliable info source first hand, I find this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Westwood
so, I guess is not him …
It takes longer deep research to found more about him that of course come from Osprey Publishing itself. Who else.!!
https://ospreypublishing.com/david-westwood
This what a book historian writer says about him as follow copy extracted from a blog
(Regarding David Westwood. He appears to have graduated from the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst but does not seem to have published anything of notice on a scholarly level. It simply appears that he pursued studying the Wehrmacht at an albeit higher level than a hobbyist but never produced anything than apparent popular history works.
It appears in that case that Westwood is one of those average authors who write topically interesting, but forgettable books without any original contribution or insight.)
Another great source for simple data well researched is an “Illustrated dictionary of the Third Reich” by Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage
I can add to the title other books that specially point the issue with helmet and Jumpsuit not used in Luftwaffe Field Division, but I think no need for now.
Now regarding a history fact is totally different.
I had not pointed any comment about these figures been made wrong or any at all to avoid hurting some feelings. In fact, I consider then better of all made so far by this maker
I just add to the correct statement point out by some already above in reference to the historical fact the Luftwaffe Field Division were not supplied with Paratrooper helmet and paratroopers smack jumpsuit better knowns as (Knochensack) from where the British alike was base from by the way.
• Only other known units using were the Brandenburger that were special units that as were used as an infiltration commando special forces were trained like paratroopers in some small units and were supplied with the Knochensack plus paratrooper helmet and gear.
That was all I say and a comment suggesting not to use simple Wikipedia image as reference of history proof.
In relation to this set and in the positive way to those that like it in my opinion the figures can be given use as any they like, and the poses looks that represent (Fallschirmjäger)Paratroopers used as such while others as Luftwaffe Field Division or else. I don’t think that is a big issue regarding then other than the set is mix off and give you more action poses for either or units. That is all.
Best
Don, there are no qualifications listed on the Wikipedia page for Martin Windrow, they just list his books and his own journey to Morocco in 2007 to research his book. In fact a banner across the top of the page indicates that more factual information is required. The wiki page has listed him as a Military Historian as his occupation in fact it is ‘Commissioning Editor’ for OSPREY Books and states this inside the cover of the books.
It would seem that you have a different interpretation of what an historian is, if you mean that someone interested in a particular subject is an historian then I am one too as are many collectors here. My interpretation is that to be called an historian you should have an academic qualification from a University. We can differ on this it’s not a problem.
Anyone can publish a book on any subject you simply need a publisher to take you on or use LULU on your own. Just because you have written a book does not make you an expert.
This is all interpretative of course and everyone has an opinion, mine differs from you on this occasion.
Although you seem to agree that Wikipedia is not 100% accurate.
Les, your comment that “Anyone can publish a book on any subject you simply need a publisher to take you on…” misses the point.
It’s the equivalent of saying, “Anyone can get into medical school. They just need to get outstanding grades and a great SAT score.” True, but that’s sort of the point, isn’t it?
Finding a publisher to, as you put it, “take you on” is the heart of the issue. Finding a publisher in the field of history requires some level of expertise. If you don’t realize this, why don’t you go out and try “finding yourself a publisher” who will “take you on “.
I believe you will quickly find that “finding a publisher” for your writings requires two things: 1) expertise in the subject on which you wish to write, and 2) literary ability.
Please don’t equate this with “self-publishing”. Anyone can “self-publish”, if you have the money. But finding a publisher (other than a “self-publisher”), as Martin Windrow has done, is something else entirely.
The fact that a pubishing house has seen seen fit to publish 400 of Mr. Windrow’s books, articles, and monographs is itself indicative that he has demonstrated both expertise and literary ability.
It truly is quite silly for you to argue otherwise.
And I meant to add, Les, that “No” you are not a “historian” in any sense of the word, nor am I.
I have an undergraduate degree in history, and I read widely. But I would never present myself as a “historian” until I have both researched and been published in some historical field.
Being “published” is the key. And if you think that’s easy to do, just try it sometime, and see how far you get.
Once I’ve been published (beyond “self-publishing”) then I will have the right to claim that I’m a “historian”, regardless of whether I do or do not have an advanced degree in the field.
This really isn’t a matter of just having a “different opinion”.
Publication at the academic level would also include peer review which would hopefully catch the type of errors being discussed, so academic publications are more accurate than wiki sources.
Gentlemen, ladies why such an arguement over such a beautiful set of figures.
In a dying market Mars are to be commended for their efforts.
This resurgence reminds me so much of the days of Airfix.
Please just enjoy the set. Everyone makes mistakes and after all these are only toy soldiers to play with and enjoy.
To everyone who reads – have a great day.
Cheers
Alan
People are getting very passionate about the figures being produced. Some people are concerned with historical accuracy. Others worry about price. You as the buyer have to make your own decision.
Has “Erwin” been published? Where can I get his book(s)?
You need paid first Brian.
is not free as wikipedia .
and cheap stuff is generally bad ,copy or and adopted- redacted.
…..
For how much it is I send?
Where I pay there?
Does OSPREY do make the books of “ERWIN”?
No I don’t like write x a bad publisher …sorry.
i will send u invoice Brian w shipping cost.
as i had done before x you.Hope you can afford it.
best..
Don, I will of course disagree with what you have written on several levels. Having been in the bookselling business and having the ability to actually talk with knowledgeable people in the field you are simply wrong in your assertion that not just anyone can publish a book. I’ve seen. handled and had to try and sell many books that should never have been published and that are pure trash both in content and written ability.
You clearly do not understand the book trade.
Mr. Windrow is qualified as a journalist and has been in the ‘trade’ for enough years now to have contacts in many publishing houses including the one he works for, which of course will gladly publish his writings.
I will leave you to your ‘opinion’ and I’ll stick with mine.
Nothing to fall out about here. it’s just a friendly conversation 🙂
I don’t care whether Wikipedia is reliable or not. I do not worry too much on the authenticity of Osprey publications. When I see a set of soldiers, and get that feeling, (you all know what I mean), I buy them. Some of my favourite figures could hardly be described as historically accurate. Collecting toy soldiers is supposed to be an enjoyable experience. Over analysing every tiny detail somehow lessens that enjoyment.
As per ” new production” figures don’t forget EF and the news [ on this site] about Austin Miniatures WW2 Japanese and Warhansa.
I think John has an excellent point. The enjoyment of collecting, for me, is about imagination and fun. My brother and I set up battles either on a ping pong table or on padded floor in my over-sized garage and just have fun with them. We turn it into a dice-based war game of sorts and just enjoy the tactile nature of setting them up in units, moving them, etc. We have both stretched the practical uses of some of our toy soldiers (uniforms and equipment that don’t quite fit other battles or scenarios to fill in gaps created by what is not sufficiently produced). A perfect example would be using Armies in Plastic World War I Indians in brown to help bolster the numbers of my WWII Indian forces. The uniforms aren’t the same and WWII Indian units would likely have had some Bren guns, Sten guns, or Thompsons amongst their ranks rather than having solely rifles as Tony’s Indians do. I make do or improvise and have absolutely qualms with doing so. Having a masters in History (which is of no use to me for my actual occupation), I can say definitively that you do not have to be a PhD to be considered an historian. Possessing quality primary and secondary source material and having an interesting topic are obviously critical, but being able to use those sources to draw reasonable conclusions or at least form a cogent argument are the most important skills to have as a historian.
Also, I actually do like these new German figures even if I am no fan of Mars as a whole. As noted earlier they do offer something new as far as WWII Germans go and I think some of the figures in the set are pretty versatile. They will probably still be in that terrible light grey though so I will have to paint them.
As a side question:
Am I the only one who is excited for the Plastic Platoon WWII Greeks? It hasn’t been done as far as I am aware.
I am excited as well! But of course I am American of Greek descent.