[Kepler]

I really do wish it was all truly the same scale. It’s especially annoying for me when they’re inconsistent with armaments; two vehicles will have the same gun but it’s visibly much larger on one model because it was designed to emphasize the gunner, at infantry scale. And like you noted, I prefer to assemble all of my tanks with hatches closed because the commanders either seem oversized (sometimes comically so) or are visibly smaller than the infantry running around.

It’s funny, because Warlord does make seated crew blocks that you can use on standard Hanomags to make them look full (e.g. https://us.warlordgames.com/products/seated-waffen-ss-squad-hanomag), but even then, if you notice, they could only make space for 10/12 theoretical passengers, and their legs are overlapping in a way that makes the aisle space unusable and gives the machine gunner nowhere to stand. I was thinking one could at least use something like this to see if you could seat ~3 men on the rear ‘bench’, but even then, in a compressed shoulder-to-shoulder pose, they’re too big.

[Kepler]

Sorry, that was entirely a tangent. It is, of course, completely correct to note that the forward facing machine gun should be coaxial rather than pintle-mounted, but this is nevertheless a huge nerf to the capability of the vehicle. Being able to shoot both the howitzer and a forward machine gun in the same turn made it very strong for its cost, which is the main reason I’d purchased one. I mostly only bring that up to explain why I have it assembled but unpainted.

Jim, thank you for the insight there. Interesting to note that the 251/7, in game, also retains its 12-man transport capacity. So I guess, by and large, transport capacity is probably defined by someone at Warlord eyeballing the vehicle and saying ‘eh, looks like we could squeeze 8 guys in there’. That said, I can’t imagine this ever changes, mostly because (which I assume is what brought up the question in the first place) the recently released ‘Cross of Iron’ starter set comes with the 251/9, likely intended for the primary purpose of providing transport capability. I do think it would be reasonable to cut that back to maybe 6, since as you noted that’s about as many as could realistically be squeezed in if absolutely necessary, but it’s included and balanced around being a transport, which at this point is why most people would actually purchase the model.

[Kepler]

I believe they only have the one kit, but with multiple assembly options. I built mine with the bench seats to emphasize its role as a transport vehicle in my army list (which I’ve since removed, since they nerfed it in the errata), but the vehicle can be built with space for them.

I’d like to reiterate I’m not arguing with you about the correct historical usage of the vehicle. That said, when you bring up the Stuka Zu Fuss, it’s worth noting that they would never add transport capacity to that vehicle, since it would serve no tabletop purpose. Neither vehicle would historically have been intended to operate as close as Bolt Action vehicles get, but the rules make it worthless to bring rocket artillery up close, whereas driving your howitzer up the middle of the field and firing point blank while troops unload can be a valid tactic. (Side note, if you’ve researched this, wouldn’t the benches actually have been removed from the Stuka Zu Fuss to make space for more rockets?)

At the end of the day, it’s a game first and foremost. The game has many concessions where gameplay design intentionally supersedes historical accuracy, and this is one of them. It would have been more accurate as you said to make the 250/8 and 251/9 a single entry, but Warlord must have felt it was beneficial to have a transport with a light howitzer on it, so they allowed for it. And since they have specifically addressed these vehicles in the errata for other reasons, they’ve clearly looked at the rules and decided they were as intended.

Attachments:

1. 

   20260818_135738-scaled.jpg
   

[Kepler]

Regardless of historical accuracy, this is very clearly an intentional decision, as the rulebook entry for the 251/9 is exactly the same as the 250/8 on the preceding page, save for the addition of transport capacity. As for the model itself, the only reason we couldn’t fit 8 men inside would be the discrepancy between infantry and vehicle scale in Bolt Action. It does come with bench seats, and I was able to assemble it with the four passenger models it came with plus the loader standing in the aisle. Considering the oversized infantry and the fact that their footprint is widened because of their hard poses, the model could fit 8 passengers just as well as the stock Hanomags would be able to carry 12. I’m sure you’re right that the ammo, radio, etc. would have made it unfeasible for passengers, but I’d venture to guess Warlord decided to allow transport because they made the model, and then thought ‘Hey, it looks like we could fit some people in there!’; or else because there’s no in-game distinction between the 250/8 and 251/9.

[Author]

Posts