Soviet GB Suggested Rules

[Weaver]

Sooooo! Which one do i select if I want to do a Mig-28? 

I've never entered a GB, but, I've a bit of time on my hands and sorely tempted, in order to actually get something finished!

Give us the outlines of the backstory and we'll tell you! Basically, where is it made and who's flying it?

Well , I guess it's going to be built and operated by Soviet Russia. Quite fancy some of the demo and display team colours used by the Soviets!

In that case it'll be fine.

[Leading Observer]

Am I correct in thinking that ex-Third Reich machinery operated by the Soviet Union fit the Soviet only interpretation, as I have a couple of possibilities in mind for some of the late WW2/Luft'46 stuff

[Weaver]

Am I correct in thinking that ex-Third Reich machinery operated by the Soviet Union fit the Soviet only interpretation, as I have a couple of possibilities in mind for some of the late WW2/Luft'46 stuff

Yes: if it's operated by the Soviet Union then it's okay.

[JasonW]

Am I correct in thinking that ex-Third Reich machinery operated by the Soviet Union fit the Soviet only interpretation, as I have a couple of possibilities in mind for some of the late WW2/Luft'46 stuff

Yes, that would be correct. Me-262 or some such in Soviet service/markings, or as developed further by Soviets post WW2 would be within the rules in either of the poll scenarios.

[Leading Observer]

Am I correct in thinking that ex-Third Reich machinery operated by the Soviet Union fit the Soviet only interpretation, as I have a couple of possibilities in mind for some of the late WW2/Luft'46 stuff

Yes, that would be correct. Me-262 or some such in Soviet service/markings, or as developed further by Soviets post WW2 would be within the rules in either of the poll scenarios.

Great - I have an idea for an alternative Tu-4 [amoungst others]

[TheChronicOne]

Am I correct in thinking that ex-Third Reich machinery operated by the Soviet Union fit the Soviet only interpretation, as I have a couple of possibilities in mind for some of the late WW2/Luft'46 stuff

Yes, that would be correct. Me-262 or some such in Soviet service/markings, or as developed further by Soviets post WW2 would be within the rules in either of the poll scenarios.

Great - I have an idea for an alternative Tu-4 [amoungst others]

GMTA!! I was thinking of doing one, too! I was thinking of making a Cuban one. Instead of nuclear missiles, the Russians were sending Cuba Tu-4s..    Not sure if I'll get to it, though,  so I'm looking forward to seeing yours. 

Any how, I hope I'm not dragging the thread off topic. Just wanted to stop and say I like your idea. 

[ysi_maniac]

Pity, If I could vote, there would be an even. 

[Weaver]

Pity, If I could vote, there would be an even. 

Why couldn't you vote?

[Mossie]

Tight!  I've got admit, I was hung and went with Soviet Russia only, one vote either way could have tipped it.

[chrisonord]

Te outcome suits me down to the ground, hopefully the kits I have in mind, behave themselves and go together ok, and not cause me too much stress, as I have a prototype Tupolev and 1 possibly 2 MIG's too. Or I could get really creative and make something out of the spare russian armour bits I have, and hopefully it will have enough Russian parts on it to pass scrutineering of the G.B.
Chris. 

[Dizzyfugu]

One issue we will certainly run into is the necessary mass of new NATO codes we will need, esp. for fighters! Looking forward to the weird ideas that certainly will come up. 

[zenrat]

Ah good.  The result I wanted.
Close one but.

Dizz is right.  NATO reporting names will be a complication.  I don't want to make extra work for anyone but maybe we should have a moderated thread listing our choices to avoid any repetition?

Here is a relevant wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_reporting_name
I note NATO doesn't differentiate between strike aircraft and fighters.  Maybe Whiff NATO should?  I would suggest "S" names.

[Old Wombat]

"S" names are used for surface-to-surface missiles; so I'd suggest "T" or "P" names for ground-attack/CAS/strike aircraft, if you really want to differentiate between them.

(Although, what do you call a Frogfoot under those circumstances? )

[zenrat]

Hmm, yes.  Bugger.  I missed that.
Shame as I had some good S names in mind.

[Snowtrooper]

One issue we will certainly run into is the necessary mass of new NATO codes we will need, esp. for fighters! Looking forward to the weird ideas that certainly will come up. 

That's why you need to have a Tsar Bomba -sized hardcover Webster's Dictionary so you can browse for inspiration

(Yes, I still find dead trees the preferable user interface for randomly browsing the pages.)