Wargames Atlantic Plastic Afghan Warriors Review

[Mark M Down]

Thanks, here is a picture of the proposed sculpts for the cavalry. I think they look great and can’t wait for them to be produced.

[italwars]

They are nice of course ..very nice ..But at risk to be considered, even this time 😏, a mood breaker ..I must say that they appear to represent tribal cavalry and even if those minis  are well designed they are , in my opinion , quite useless if you want to game (as I do) historically based battles..or even skirmishes..I ve read quite a few sources on the NWF even rare ones but I never, really never heard anything about actions in which mounted tribesmen were met by Anglo-Indian troops ..except of course Polo matches

[carlos marighela]

I’m wondering if they might not make decent stand-ins for Baluchi/Balochi cavalry, wo certainly did see action against Indian Army cavalry, vis Meeanee/Miani 1843.

[Hammers]

Oooh, that's marvelous. I am going  to ask again are there any sprues from any comapny with Mk. I Enfields? I've been googling myself silly trying to find someting to kitbash these Afghans with.

[JArgo]

Oooh, that's marvelous. I am going  to ask again are there any sprues from any comapny with Mk. I Enfields? I've been googling myself silly trying to find someting to kitbash these Afghans with.

Warlord have sprues with Enfields but I guess theyre not Mk 1's - are there big differences?

[Plynkes]

If he means the MLE rather than the SMLE Mk1, then yes, they do look pretty different.


In my blissful ignorance about all things ballistic, to me the SMLEs are all pretty much the same, at least in 28mm. I don't care to get too bothered about their differences at that size. But the MLE is a different beast. You wouldn't really muddle them up.

[Grumpy Gnome]

I was trying to explain to my wife the other day that I could not possibly use matchlock guns on figures that should have flintlocks on one of our projects. She said... meh, at that size, a gun is a gun. I did not see her roll her eyes but it sounded like an eye rolling tone of voice.

[Hammers]

If he means the MLE rather than the SMLE Mk1, then yes, they do look pretty different.


In my blissful ignorance about all things ballistic, to me the SMLEs are all pretty much the same, at least in 28mm. I don't care to get too bothered about their differences at that size. But the MLE is a different beast. You wouldn't really muddle them up.

I mean the SMLE No 1 Mk I or III, which had a distinctly snub nose was produced in huge numbers for WWI. The British WWII plastic kits I’ve seen carry SMLE No4 mk I. Call me a button counter, I’d notice the difference.

[Hammers]

I was trying to explain to my wife the other day that I could not possibly use matchlock guns on figures that should have flintlocks on one of our projects. She said... meh, at that size, a gun is a gun. I did not see her roll her eyes but it sounded like an eye rolling tone of voice.

The sound of eyes rolling is the worst...

[Plynkes]

Okay, I guess you're a button counter then. Nothing wrong with that in my book. To my untrained eye the first few marks all look the same, nose-wise. The mk III and III* are the ones that were largely used in the Great War, as far as I'm aware (though honestly I'm not very aware at all when it comes to guns).

My head spins with Lee-Enfields, anyway. What with the MLE, the LEC, CLLE, SMLE mk I, II,III, III*,  V, Rifle No.1 mk VI,  Rifle no.4, 5 and.... Oh hell, that's where my tired and wonky brain gives up and I throw my hands in the air.

But I get you. You want the Great War one with the shorter nose, rather than the 1930s-40s+ one. Not sure I've seen any of those separately available. But then, I haven't looked...